What is the responsibility of a State's Attorney General's office? The Illinois Attorney General's office appears to have an unfair practice with businesses in Illinois. It seems there Consumer Protection Division advocates for businesses instead of the consumer. You decide. Anyone wanting to respond without being noticed, please send emails. Your confidentiality will be respected.
Attorney General of the State of Illinois
Ms. Lisa Madigan
Springfield Main Office
500 South Second Street
Springfield, IL 62706
Re: River Oaks Toyota – File No. 2005-CONSC-00132352
Ms. Madigan:
I am writing today to exemplify my displeasure with your Chicago Office and my criminal allegations against River Oaks Toyota. I submitted and articulated my allegations very well to Ms. Dolores Rodman. I submitted unchallenged documentation to my charge of consumer fraud and the deceptive business practices of River Oaks Toyota.
I read a quote this morning from your website by the Daily Southtown reporting, "Once in a great while a politician comes along who could make a difference in people's lives. Lisa Madigan, the Democratic candidate for Illinois attorney general, is such a person." I disagree.
On your website it is also reported, “Since I took office in January 2003, the Attorney General's office has won great victories in the areas of consumer protection, public safety, crime victim services, and environmental protection. …As the state's chief legal officer, protecting the residents of Illinois is my top priority. Last fall, we conducted hearings on lifetime supervision for sex offenders. I promised Illinois citizens that I would work tirelessly to begin a great tradition in Illinois by being an aggressive public advocate.” It is my belief and from my recent experiences your office is not an aggressive advocate for your constituents.
I have discussed the issues of File No. 2005-CONSC-00132352 extensively on my website: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/, publishing and posting my writings for public viewing. I am aware of your fight against “sex offenders”, and I applaud you. I was a sex offense counselor/therapist. I know the threat against our communities. You have advocated for and accomplished satellite monitoring of sex offenders. What about consumer protection from fraud and deceptive practices? What about satellite monitoring for those who commit murder and armed robberies? It appears your office has concentrated on what is most popular in our social world. It seems your office is not interested in justice and equality for the disadvantaged and disenfranchised.
As you will read from my posting on my website of my request for employment with the Illinois Department of Corrections, I have been incarcerated. I was part of the social problem in the past. I am part of the solution today. I am not ashamed of my past. It was a stepping-stone to my future. This is sometimes used against me when addressing issues. This may be what is happening to me now. Your “advocate-in-charge” Ms. Rodman may be diminishing my charge against River Oaks Toyota because of my past. Ms. Rodman has not provided any reasoning for her decision besides “she has exhausted all efforts….” What efforts? It appears as if Ms. Rodman is acting as a mediator for the parties involved. You do not mediate business fraud and deceptive practice. You prosecute it!!! I usually receive retaliatory acts and/or punished in some manner for suggesting or reporting an agency or government entity’s irresponsibility in handling the matters of social justice and equality. I am expecting this from your office also. If a company or business defrauds or deceives the public, they are committing a criminal act.
After articulating my issues well and providing supporting documentation, I received a letter from Ms. Dolores Rodman on October 21, 2005 stating, “Please be advised that we are closing our file containing your complaint. We are doing so because we have exhausted all efforts available to us on your behalf.” Is this the relief your constituents receive reporting business fraud and deceptive practices? Is this how your office addresses business fraud and deceptive practices? For sake of argument and Ms. Rodman is acting as a mediator, is this how she advocates for the socially disenfranchised and disadvantaged? If this is how your office operates, a change is needed.
The issues I presented in my complaint depict fraud and deceptive practices by River Oaks Toyota. From the correspondence I have received from Ms. Rodman, River Oaks Toyota never addressed the issues of fraud and deceptive practice in my complaint. From the correspondence I have received from Mr. Rodman, River Oaks Toyota was never prompted by your office to address the issues of the complaint. It appears from River Oaks Toyota’s responses, your office allowed them to avoid the issues of my complaint.
Ms. Rodman did not provide me with an analysis of her findings/results. She did not provide a rationale for her findings/results. If your office does not provide an analysis or rationale for their findings/results to the general public, then the public is being shortchanged. The public is then receiving a biased and possibly unsupported finding/result. What method of checks and balances are performed on decisions?
The issues articulated in my correspondence to Ms. Rodman and posted on my website are expressed in every letter received by the Illinois Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division. Your Citizen Advocates are not working for the consumer. It appears they are working with the businesses your constituents make allegations against.
Your “Consumer Protection Division” is a farce. Ms. Rodman suggests I seek legal counsel. Ms. Rodman is basically telling me to “prosecute” River Oaks Toyota for fraud and deceptive practice. If your constituents have to seek legal counsel as a “consumer” being protected against deceptive practices of a business, then your department of “Consumer Protection Division” needs to be disbanded. Your office does not protect the consumer. It indulges and encourages the business owner to deceive and fraud the public.
Ms. Rodman suggests I file a claim with Small Claims Court. If your constituents cannot afford to seek legal counsel or cannot stand the test and tedious task of Small Claims Court, then your “Consumer Protection Division” has failed your constituents. I have litigation experience. I would not have a problem bringing a civil action against River Oaks Toyota. This is not a civil matter. It is a criminal matter, in nature. Nevertheless, the handling of this matter does not negate what you promote and suggest to the general public to stand against, that being Consumer Fraud and Protection. One could make an analysis from my issues that your office promotes consumer fraud and business deceptive practices.
I have published and posted on my website other letters written to you and the Governor Rod Blagojevich, such as mental health, negative police officer behavior and judicial improprieties. I have reported to your office the lack of support toward social justice and equality from the South Holland Police Department with a mental health protocol. I have reported improprieties in the judicial system at the Daley Center in Chicago. Your office has skirted past these issues as well. Where is the relief for the socially disadvantaged and disenfranchised that should be streaming from your office?
Everyone I have reported these issues to are from the Democratic Party, such as U.S. Senator Obama, Senator Meeks, and Illinois State Representative David Miller. I am not Democratic or Republican. I am not Liberal or Conservative. I am an advocate for social justice and equality for the disenfranchised and disadvantaged. Whatever party or line of thinking aligns itself with social justice and equality, I support. It is the right of all citizens of Illinois to expect the Office of the Attorney General to align itself with social justice and equality.
The people of the State of Illinois need to make better choices and informed decisions about who is voted into office. I attempt to accomplish this task with my publications and postings on the Internet. Maybe Illinois needs a change of party in the Illinois Attorney General’ Office and Governor’s office. I have published and posted on my website Dr. Eric Wallace for Lt. Governor of Illinois. His position and what he stands for appears to be better than the present government in power.
I will promote, in any way, the candidacy and election of Dr. Eric Wallace for Lt. Governor. Anything is better than what is in place now. River Oaks Toyota should not be exempt from criminal charges of fraud and deceptive practices. I should not have to pursue this in civil court.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Ms. Dolores Rodman, Citizen’s Advocate, Consumer Protection
Division (faxed copy sent)
Mr. James Lebo, GM River Oaks Toyota (faxed copy sent)
Mr. Rod Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois (faxed copy sent)
Ms. Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General (fax and hard copy sent)
October 24, 2005
River Oaks Toyota, Calumet City, Illinois; Deceptive Practices and Advertisement
From this reading, no consumer should purchase or seek repairs from River Oaks Toyota. If this writing can in any way prevent another consumer from suffering the nefarious, insensitive and irresponsible nature of the acts complained of, C.L.I.C.K. for Justice and Equality has fulfilled its role of giving information to the public to allow the consumer to make better choices in where they shop for their needs. In Illinois, the consumer will not get any meaningful assistance from the Attorney General Office.
On October 21, 2005, I received correspondence from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, which had as an attachment a letter written by River Oaks Toyota. I have posted the cover letter of the Office of the Attorney General and the River Oaks Toyota response in the comment section of this writing. Please read to understand the following statement.
The Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois, avoids addressing the validity of my claim. I submitted appropriate supporting documentation with my argument. From what is written, which are the facts, no one in their right mind could come to a conclusion such as reported by Ms. Dolores Rodman, Citizen's Advocate, Consumer Protection Division.
It appears Ms. Rodman is "protecting" the perpetrator of this deceptive practice, River Oaks Toyota. No where in her correspondence to me does she outline why she came to the conclusion she did in closing my file on River Oaks Toyota. What she did was refer me, the consumer, to another exhausting remedy of "Small Claims Court, which I will pursue.
The Illinois Attorney General Office for the State of Illinois does not act on the behalf of its constituents under this regime. All voters must be aware of who they are voting for in their individual elections. Consumer fraud must not be part of "mainstream" thinking as is "sex offense crimes." I am a sex offense counselor. I know how vigorously Ms. Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General, acts in behalf of her constituents. Sex offenses are part of "mainstream" thinking because of its notariety. Ms. Lisa Madigan allows companies like River Oaks Toyota to operate as dipicted in my posted writing.
Regarding River Oaks Toyota's letter written by their General Manager, James Lebo, he reports River Oaks Toyota has been in business for over 30 years. I would like to know what does this have to do with clear deceptive practices as written by me. Mr. Lebo suggest they would not have met this "milestone" if they practiced what I have written. I beg to differ. If no one complains to the appropriate authority, allegations such as I have written will continue.
Mr. Lebo has yet to discuss or write to the Illinois Attorney General's office a defense to my allegations. He simply has not addressed my allegations, and what is more important, the Illinois Attorney General's office has not insisted he address the allegations. Instead, the Illinois Attorney General's office closes my file. Who side are they own? It surely is not the right side. It surely does not address justice and equality.
Mr. Lebo instead leads the Illinois Attorney General's office to my website, providing them with an exhaustive photocopy list of the writings I have posted on this website suggesting they are false claims made to the Illinois Attorney General's office. Mr. Lebo reports I have over fifty claims on my website. I guess Mr. Lebo cannot count either. Nevertheless, my website may well have over a 1000 writings about different social issues in the near future. What do these apples have to do with his oranges?
Mr. Lebo reports in his letter his attempt to resolve my issues. This is an outright lie. Mr. Lebo has not addressed any of my issues regarding the deceptive practice allegation. With this statement, we can assume they are continuous with other customers.
Mr. Lebo reports because his "attempt" to resolve my issues have failed, in his mind my allegations are closed. What arrogance!!! Mr. Lebo reports I lack understanding. I would like to know, as you (the reader)would like to know, what is there to understand about a deceptive practice. There is no misunderstanding. The allegations are clear and concise. I submitted documentation to the Illinois Attorney General's office to support my allegations. Nevertheless, Ms. Rodman dismissed my claims, evidently without examining or giving credence to the obvious deprivation of rights for the consumer.
Mr. Lebo needs to address the allegation of deceptive practices in his advertising. The Illinois Attorney General's office should have River Oaks Toyota address the issues I raised, especially the issue of deceptive practices in their advertising. If this is not addressed, the Illinois Attorney General's office for the State of Illinois condones this behavior of every other company operating within its boundaries.
What do you think as consumers? From reading the writing posted, how do you feel about River Oaks Toyota? If you want to respond and remain anonymous, please send an email. I will report your comment. We as consumers need to ask, request and provide a consensus on any company who deprives the consumer of the right to have a just and fair service from a business owner.
Fred Nance Jr.
October 5, 2005
River Oaks Toyota responds to the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.
River Oaks Toyota never addresses the issues of deceptive practices and advertising, and pricing rates. The Illinois Attorney General’s Office request Nance review this response and contact Ms. Dolores Rodman, Citizen’s Advocate, Consumer Protection Division of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, in writing within ten (10) days of Nance’s receipt of this response. Nance received this response in the U.S. Mail on October 5, 2005.
River Oaks Toyota’s response letter dated September 30, 2005, typed word-for-word, states as follows:
On July 19, 2005 Mr. Fred Nance Jr.’s wife brought his vehicle which is a 2003 Corolla in for service complaining that the check engine light was on and that the brakes were making noise also he stated that he needed an oil change. After the technician diagnosed the vehicle he found that the problem with the check engine light was that the fuel cap was bad and needed to be replaced. The ASM which was Todd Sobczak called Mrs. Nance and explained to what the vehicle needed as well as what the cost would be for the repairs. Mrs. Nance agreed to have the repairs done. Upon picking the vehicle up after repairs Mr. Nance disagreed with the cost of the repairs. At that time Todd Sobczak explained to Mr. Nance that the time spent on his vehicle is based on a flat rate labor time. Mr. Nance then wanted to speak to the Service Manager. Service Manager Sylvester Jackson explained to Mr. Nance and was not happy with the response. He proceeded to write a letter to his Colleagues. On Tuesday September 27, 2005 Mr. Nance called Service Manager Sylvester Jackson and stated that his brakes were squeaking and wanted to bring his vehicle in to be checked out. Service Manager told him to bring his vehicle in there would be no wait and no appointment needed. September 28, 2005 Mrs. Nance brought the vehicle in at 8:30 am for inspection to the brake problem. Service Manager Sylvester Jackson greeted Mrs. Nance and proceeded to write a service order to have her brakes inspected. Service Manager asked Mrs. Nance if she wanted to wait for her vehicle, she stated that she had to go to work and would pick up her vehicle after 3:30 pm that same day. The technician begins to inspect the vehicle and could not duplicate the problem. At 2:15 pm Mr. Nance entered the service department to pick up vehicle he was told the vehicle was not ready yet. At that time Mr. Nance became belligerent and due to his actions all of our customers that were in the waiting room as well as the showroom witness the slander against River Oaks Toyota. Mr. Nance had our customer un-eased. As Mr. Nance went to pick up his receipt from the cashier he begin yelling at Shawn Sprang one of our Sales Manager. Mr. Sprang told Mr. Nance if he didn’t calm down he would call the police. He demanded his vehicle then left.
Signed
Jim Lebo, General Manager
File Number – 132352
October 5, 2005
Office of the Attorney General
State of Illinois, Lisa Madigan Attorney General
Ms. Dolores Rodman, Citizen Advocate
Consumer Protection Division
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Re: River Oaks Toyota File # 2005-CONSC-00132352
Response to River Oaks Toyota Letter dated September 30, 2005
Ms. Rodman:
This is my reply to River Oaks Toyota’s response dated September 30, 2005. I, Fred Nance Jr., faxed copies of my letters to River Oaks Toyota on July 20, 2005 and September 28, 2005. River Oaks Toyota has working knowledge of all the issues discussed. The Illinois Attorney General’s Office supplied River Oaks Toyota with the same documentation they had already, which is what I gave the Illinois Attorney General.
River Oaks Toyota never addresses the issues of deceptive practices and advertising, and their pricing rates. Therefore, my allegations on deceptive practices and advertising, and pricing rates must be taken as true statements. Nevertheless, I, Fred L Nance Jr., will address the statements of their response letter. I will re-emphasize my allegations first.
River Oaks Toyota uses deceptive practices and advertising to get customer’s to service their vehicles. Their advertisement, specifically for the service we had with an oil change and brake service, never stated there is an additional labor charge to their promotion of a particular service advertised in their brochure, which has an expiration date of July 31, 2005. An example of an appropriate business practice of an advertisement, in this instance, is Royal Ford of South Holland, which is approximately a ¼ mile west of River Oaks Toyota. Royal Ford of South Holland advertised an oil change for about $24.95. I serviced my 1998 Nissan Altima on August 10, 2005 with this advertisement for an oil change. Royal Ford of South Holland listed their normal pricing on my receipt but subtracted it out through the “less insurance” item to reflect their “public” advertisement (invoice and advertisement attached). This is an appropriate business practice for advertisement (attached invoice and advertisement of Royal Ford). I can also give examples of Oil Express and many like companies advertising oil changes that do not add labor cost to their advertised cost unless listed in their advertisement. Therefore, I stand on my letters dated July 20, 2005 and September 28, 2005 as if set forth fully within this document.
River Oaks Toyota never addresses in writing the “deceptive practices and advertising or book hours” used for the labor cost. The labor charges I incurred were not reflected in their advertisement for the services (advertisement brochure attached). In addition, Toyota charged me an $88.00 labor charge for a gas cap I never asked for. I told Todd I could buy a gas cap for my car requesting he leave that item out of our cost. River Oaks Toyota charged me 4 hours labor for 2 hours of work.
Response to River Oaks Toyota letter (Toyota)
Toyota reports the technician diagnosed the vehicle needing a gas cap. Toyota’s gas cap cost $16.64. I was charged an $88.00 labor cost for Toyota replacing my gas cap, which my wife and I did not authorize. As I stated in my letter of July 20, 2005 5th paragraph, “she told him she would call him back.” In the 6th paragraph of this letter I report after my wife gave me the information about the analysis I called Todd Sobczak. Todd states Mrs. Nance agreed to have the repairs done. After my wife and I discussed the analysis, my wife called Todd back an authorized him to provide the brake service and oil change according to the advertisement, stating do not replace the gas cap. This is the agreement my wife had with Todd. River Oaks Toyota’s advertisement did not state that there would be a labor charge added to the advertised price. This is a deceptive business practice.
Toyota’s letter states Todd explained to me the time spent on the vehicle is based on a flat rate labor time. Whether this is true or not this flat labor rate flies in the face of the listed advertisement for the service rendered. The advertisement clearly does not state there will be a labor cost to the services advertised.
Toyota’s letter acknowledges me calling on September 27, 2005 about needing service to the brake service previously acquired from Toyota. Toyota’s letter states on September 27, 2005 the Service Manager told me that if I brought my vehicle in there would be no wait and no appointment needed. What the Service Manager really told me was that there is a first-come, first-serve policy. Nevertheless, if we use their statement it still flies in the face of a “no wait” policy, with my car being at Toyota without the work being done from 8:30 am to 2:00 pm.
The Toyota letter states, “Mrs. Nance brought the vehicle in at 8:30 am for inspection to the brake problem. Service Manager Sylvester Jackson greeted Mrs. Nance….” When my wife left home on September 28, 2005 to “drop” the car off as spoken about with Mr. Jackson and I on September 27, 2005, we arranged that I would be taking her to work and picking her car up when I contacted my brother. When Mr. Jackson informed my wife the work would be done in 1-½ hours he, Mr. Jackson, knew we were dropping the car off because of the conversation I had with the day before. This time frame had nothing to do with whether we would wait for the car or come back and pick the car up. This contradicts the statement Mr. Jackson made to me, which is the “first-come, first-serve policy of River Oaks Toyota or if we use River Oaks Toyota’s earlier statement in their response letter, where they state, “Service Manager told him to bring his vehicle in there would be no wait and no appointment needed.”
The Service Manager tells an outright lie about my wife. He reports in the Toyota letter that my wife stated, “…she had to go to work and would pick up her vehicle after 3:30 pm that same day.” In my letter dated September 28, 2005, I report the Service Manager, Sylvester Jackson, told my wife, in front of me and his service personnel, in a sarcastic manner, “I told you if you are going to wait for your car it would be ready in 1-½ hours, and that if you were leaving it, it would not be ready until 3:00 pm.” This contradicts the “first-come, first-serve policy of River Oaks Toyota. My wife told Mr. Jackson he did not say anything about 3:00 pm. My wife told Mr. Jackson she was gong to work, but this had nothing to do with what time she would pick it up. My wife and I discussed if I should pick up the car earlier in the day because of 1 ½ hour time frame set by my wife and Mr. Jackson upon entering into the service department.
The Toyota letter further states, “The technician begins to inspect the vehicle and could not duplicate the problem.” Now, this statement follows after the Service Manager’s statement in the previous paragraph, that is, “…and would pick up her vehicle after 3:30 pm that same day.” This would infer the technician’s inspection took place after 3:30 pm. According to Toyota’s invoice for September 28, 2005 my wife and I received our car at 1:58 pm. How could Toyota’s technician inspect a car he does not have in his possession? The invoice is attached and submitted with this letter and the letter of September 28, 2005.
The Toyota letter goes on to say I entered the service department at 2:15 pm to pick up my vehicle. Toyota’s letter states I became belligerent and due to my actions all of their customers witnessed me slander River Oaks Toyota. This sentence is really stretching the arms of a civil slander. In my letter dated September 28, 2005, I report talking about the character and behavior of the Service Manager Sylvester Jackson and Sales Manager Shawn Sprang. The Service Manager decided to hold our conversation about their deceptive business practices and advertising in front of everyone present. The Sales Manager decided to sit in his seat in the open showroom while we discussed the deceptive business practices and advertising of River Oaks Toyota. I did not have the accessibility to offer a private room to the Service and Sales Manager to discuss these issues. If their public heard our discussions it is because of the unprofessional conduct and behavior of these managers. Sales Manager Sprang decided he wanted to hold our discussion/conversation in the open showroom. He did not invite me into a private area to discuss my issues.
Toyota’s letter states, “As Mr. Nance went to pick up his receipt from the cashier he begin yelling at Shawn Sprang one of our Sales Manager.” I did not go to the cashier’s window to pick up our receipt. My wife went to the window and picked up the receipt. I went outside where our car was preparing to get into our 1998 Nissan to leave River Oaks Toyota. Toyota’s letter continues with “Mr. Sprang told Mr. Nance if he didn’t calm down he would call the police.” I reported in my letter of September 28, 2005 what really happened at this time. Starting on page 2, paragraph 6, I state, Mr. Sprang informed my wife and I that our car was outside waiting on us. Mr. Sprang told me that he suggest I find somewhere else to take my car and that he did not care if I never came back up to River Oaks Toyota stating he did not like that I addressed my complaint and issues of their services in the open area of their showroom floor further threatening to call the police on me for disturbing his showroom. I told him to call them. If Mr. Sprang had cause he would have called the police.
In conclusion, River Oaks Toyota attempts to cloud the issues of deceptive business practices and advertisement, along with labor cost attached to the service acquired from the deceptive advertisement. The River Oaks Toyota advertisement does not include a clause stating there will be an additional labor cost to the cost of the services listed. There is no disclaimer.
River Oaks Toyota distorts the truth to cover up the issues presented. River Oaks Toyota continued deprivation of services and retaliatory nature of acts presented are a direct result of the complaint filed Fred L Nance Jr. to the Illinois Attorney General’s office. This can also be inferred when River Oaks Toyota mentions in their letter that I contacted my “Colleagues.” River Oaks Toyota’s intention was to defame and insult my wife and I when we brought our car back for them to check the work they had done to our car.
My wife and I never instructed them to install a new gas cap with labor cost of $88.00 to our car. If we take there conversation as true when they state I was told that they would charge $88.00 to install a gas cap, I would be an idiot to go along with a charge of this caliber. No uneducated or demented person would have agreed to this charge to replace a gas cap. White people think they can say anything they want about a black person and the public will believe them.
Wherefore, I pray that the Illinois Attorney General’s Office finds River Oaks Toyota liable and in violation of laws and policies that protect the citizens of Illinois from deceptive business practices, advertising, and pricing.
Respectfully submitted,
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
September 28, 2005
Office of the Attorney General
State of Illinois, Lisa Madigan Attorney General
Ms. Dolores Rodman, Citizen Advocate
Consumer Protection Division
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Re: River Oaks Toyota File # 2005-CONSC-00132352
Complaint #2
Ms. Rodman:
This is a follow-up to my complaint dated July 20, 2005, which is filed with the Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois, Lisa Madigan, Attorney General. I received the Illinois Attorney General office’s response letter to my complaint on River Oaks Toyota dated September 16, 2005. I also received a response letter from Mr. David Miller, my Illinois State Representative for the 29th District, dated August 26, 2005, who directed me to your office regarding addressing my issues complained about on River Oaks Toyota. The River Oaks Toyota complaint of July 20, 2005 is also posted on http://www.complaints.com/. I will post this second complaint on http://www.complaints.com/. I will also post and publish this complaint, with the first complaint which is already posted and published, on http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/. I am faxing a copy of this letter and the original letter of July 20, 2005 to River Oaks Toyota, specifically to Mr. Shawn M. Sprang, General Sales Manager, who responded to my issues today, September 28, 2005.
On September 27, 2005 I, Fred Nance Jr., called and spoke to River Oaks Toyota Service Manager, Sylvester Jackson (black male), stating I wanted to bring my Toyota Corolla in on Wednesday September 28, 2005 for inspection due to the brakes squeaking. I reminded Mr. Jackson of my previous complaint against him and the service I received from River Oaks Toyota. Mr. Jackson stated he remembered me, and my complaint. I informed Mr. Jackson that the service I required had a direct link to the service I received from River Oaks Toyota on July 19, 2005. I asked Mr. Jackson what time should I bring the car in for inspection. Mr. Jackson informed me I could bring it in anytime because it would be evaluated on a “first-come, first-serve” basis.
On September 28, 2005 at approximately 8:32 am, my wife Darlene Bouyer-Nance arrived at River Oaks Toyota with our 2003 Toyota reporting the “brakes” were squeaking. The brakes were the primary repair service done at River Oaks Toyota on July 19, 2005.
I instructed my wife to ask for Mr. Jackson because of the previous problems we have had with River Oaks Toyota. I informed my wife I had talked Mr. Jackson on Tuesday, September 27, 2005. My wife reports, she informed Mr. Jackson of the problem with the brakes. My wife reports, Mr. Jackson informed her the car would be ready in 1-½ hours. I picked my wife up and took her to work. The car was supposed to ready by 10:00 am.
My wife and I returned to River Oaks Toyota at approximately 1:45 pm to pick up the car. Mr. Jackson informed my wife the car was not ready. My wife stated to Mr. Jackson that he told her it would be ready in 1-½ hours this morning. Mr. Jackson told my wife, in a sarcastic manner, I told you if you are going to wait for your car it would be ready in 1-½ hours, and that if you were leaving it, it would not be ready until 3:00 pm. My wife told Mr. Jackson he did not say anything about 3:00 pm. I informed Mr. Jackson that we wanted our car now. Mr. Jackson informed us that there had not been any work done on the car. My wife stated she was on her lunch break and wanted her car now.
I immediately became irritated at this behavior and character of acts displayed by Mr. Jackson. I asked to speak to his boss. Mr. Jackson stated “you are talking to him.” I asked to speak to the person who owned this business. Mr. Jackson informed me that person would be up in the front. I went to the front of the store asking a gentleman I passed if he worked here. The gentleman informed me he worked for River Oaks Toyota. I asked for directions to address my issues with the owner of River Oaks Toyota. The gentleman pointed to a space in the front of the store where there were approximately 3 white males and two white females.
I requested to speak to the owner of River Oaks Toyota. Mr. Shawn M. Sprang, General Sales Manager, informed me the owner was out of town, and that I could address my issues with him. I began articulating my issues and position scanning the faces of the 3 white males and two white females as I spoke. Mr. Sprang suggested that if I wanted to obtain some resolve to my issues, I should only address him and not talk as if I am talking to everyone else.
I articulated my “free-speech” rights guarded by the 1st Amendment of our Constitution. Nevertheless, I looked directly at him and stated, “What are you going to do?” I informed him of Mr. Jackson statements, listed above, that he did not have a boss. Mr. Sprang stated if Mr. Jackson is talking about the service department, he does not have a boss. I stated to Mr. Sprang, “I am talking about the person who owns this business as I said to Mr. Jackson.” Mr. Sprang stated he would go back to the service department to see what is going on.
Mr. Sprang came back to me stating the service department told him they told my wife that her car would be ready in an hour and half if she was going to wait for the car or it would be ready at 3:00 pm if she left. I told Mr. Sprang that they were lying and protecting each other. I also informed Mr. Sprang of the conversation I had with Mr. Jackson on Tuesday, September 27, 2005, Mr. Jackson stating, “Work is done to cars on a first-come, first-serve basis.” I also told Mr. Sprang what difference did it make if a person leaves their car or stays with their car if you operate on a “first-come, first-serve basis.”
Mr. Sprang informed my wife and I that our car was outside waiting on us. Mr. Sprang told me that he suggest I find somewhere else to take my car and that he did not care if I never came back up River Oaks Toyota stating he did not like that I addressed my complaint and issues of their services in the open area of their showroom floor. Mr. Sprang threatened to call the police on me for disturbing his showroom. I told him to call them. My wife and I left River Oaks Toyota without getting any follow-up service on a possible fault in the services received from River Oaks Toyota on July 19, 2005. River Oaks Toyota owes us the responsibility of their performed work on our vehicle.
My wife and I are black. The personnel of River Oaks Toyota disrespected us. We have suffered disparate and indifferent treatment, along with being discriminated against by Mr. Shawn M. Sprang representing River Oaks Toyota. Mr. Sprang does not treat his “white” customers as we were treated. If a company operates it auto service department on a “first-come, first-serve basis” it does not matter if one stays with their car or leaves it. Either way when an estimated time is determined for completion of the service, the service should be completed. The service to one’s vehicle should not be determined by whether they will wait on their car or leave it. This does not meet the criteria for “first-come, first-serve.”
I respectfully request the Illinois Attorney General’s office continue to press forward conducting a complete and thorough investigation into the issues presented in this letter and the letter dated July 20, 2005. I will hand-deliver this follow-up (complaint letter #2) letter to the Illinois Attorney General’s office located at 100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60601, on September 29, 2005.
cc: Mr. David Miller (fax copy)
Illinois Attorney General (fax copy Chicago & Springfield)
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
http://www.complaints.com/
www.riveroakstoyota.com
Mr. Shawn M. Sprang, General Sales Manager, River Oaks Toyota
Mr. Sylvester Jackson, Service Manager, River Oaks Toyota
Toyota Motor Corporation, USA, National Customer Relations
July 20, 2005
Toyota Sales USA
National Customer Relations
19001 South Western Avenue, Dept. WC11
Torrance, California 90509
Re: River Oaks Toyota – Case # 200507200135
Dear Sir/Madam:
I, Fred Nance Jr., am writing this formal complaint to Toyota Sales USA. On July 19, 2005 at approximately 7:45 am (CST), my wife, Darlene Bouyer-Nance, took our 2003 Toyota Corolla (1NXBR32E43Z023573) to River Oaks Toyota for automobile service. She informed Mr. Todd Sobczak that she needed her brakes fixed, the service light was on, and she needed an oil change. She presented River Oaks Toyota’s advertisement for discount on the brake service and oil change.
The Brake Inspection advertisement reads: Service includes: Inspection of rotors/drums, calipers and cylinders (brake pads and shoes for wear); Report of brake system condition or estimate of repair cost; and Inspection charge will be applied to repair cost if repairs are performed here; cost $29.95.
The Front Brake Service advertisement reads: Service includes: Replace front brake pads; Inspect front and rear rotors/drums; Check parking brake, inspect all hardware; Road test; cost $99.95.
The Oil & Service Change Service advertisement reads: Service includes: Up to five quarts of premium oil; Genuine Toyota oil filter; and Check all fluid levels; cost $23.95.
My wife called me at 1:44 pm (CST) on my cell phone informing me that Mr. Todd Sobczak called her informing her that she needed to replace the front pads, resurface rotors, clean and adjust rear brakes, oil change, replace gas cap, rescan computer and clear codes. He quoted a price of $545.00 with the coupons (advertisement). She told him she would call him back.
After my wife gave me this information, I called Todd. I asked Todd why was the price so high and why did the gas cap need replacing. Todd informed me that with the advertisement the cost was $445.00. Todd informed me that the car had to be put on a system to determine why the service light was on. Todd informed me that the computer determined that the gas cap was faulty and was losing pressure triggering the system to alert the driver by the service light coming on. I asked Todd why did I have to pay for a faulty gas cap. Todd told me that since the car had over 50,000 miles I must have taken the gas cap off more than 2000 times to put gas in the car. I asked Todd what does that have to do with a faulty gas cap.
I called my wife back telling her I had talk to Todd. My wife called Todd back. This had to be after 2:00 pm (CST). The work had not been done yet. Todd admitted this work did not start until after 2:00 pm. The work was completed at 3:55 pm (per invoice).
On July 20, 2005, my wife and I went to pick up our car. We received an invoice for $430.74. The invoice displays the time the service to the automobile was done. The time listed is 15:55 (3:55 pm CST). This is less than two hours. I asked Todd to explain why I was charged $343.75 for labor. First, Todd informed me that my car had been at River Oaks Toyota for more than 8 hours. I asked him what does that have to do with the labor cost. Second, Todd informed me that the guys who work on the cars have over 20 years experience. I asked Todd what does this have to do with my labor cost. Third, Todd informed me that the guys work on “book hours.” I asked Todd to explain “book hours” to me. Todd informed me that this labor cost is based on “book hours.” Todd reports that I was charged 4 hours labor for 2 hours of actual work done on the car. Todd did not explain “book hours” to me. Jackie of Toyota Customer Relations informed me later that Toyota developed “book hours” from a normal industry cost for repairs to an automobile.
I talked to Mr. Sylvester Jackson, Service Manager, who basically pushed aside my issues. I asked for his name. He gave me his card. I asked for Todd’s information, he instructed me to get Todd’s card from him. I asked for a corporate address, a vice-president of operations, and a phone number. He gave me 1-800-331-4331.
My River Oaks Toyota invoice for labor repairs reads:
Replace Front Brake Pads $ 88.00 Labor
Machine Front Brake Rotors 158.40 Labor
Clean and Adjust Rear Brakes 34.95 Labor
Replace Fuel Cap Assembly 88.00 Labor
_______
$ 369.35
The River Oaks Toyota invoice reports: Customer states check engine light is on? Check and advise, no charge. Customer states brakes are making noise? Check all 4 wheels and advise, no charge.
River Oaks Toyota post a sign reflecting a labor charge of $88.00 an hour for service on all vehicles in their shop area. This labor cost is not reflected in their advertisement. Most other automobile advertisement for services such as complained about do not charge labor cost, unless specifically mentioned in the advertisement.
Analysis:
River Oaks Toyota charged me for 4 hours of work when I actually had 2 hours of work done on my car. Todd informed me that his men have over 20 years of experience, reporting they work faster than the “book hours.” Yet, I was charged an extra 2 hours for labor not done.
With River Oaks Toyota charging 4 hours for 2 hours of labor, they are able to bill a customer 16-hours for an 8-hour labor day, if you use the criteria for measurement as illustrated here. This is preposterous, outrageous, contemptible, and ludicrous.
River Oaks Toyota has no “Customer Relations Manager” as most Toyota facilities have to expedite and examine customer complaints before it rises to levels of corporate interference in its affairs.
Toyota Sales USA should have a recall of all faulty gas caps for their vehicles if they cannot keep the pressurized system intact without creating a cost to the customer for repairs and replacement because of a service light coming on. I was told that the whole cap assembly had to be replaced. The invoice reflects this replacement also. I had to pay a cost for the rescanning of my vehicle and clearing of codes (whatever that means), and the resetting of the computer system to my car just because I had a faulty gas cap system. There is clearly something wrong here. I should not be paying the cost for a faulty system or the labor charges incurred because of it.
Therefore, I respectfully request a complete and thorough investigation into this matter. If deemed appropriate, I expect to be refunded monies for this overcharge and any and all other equitable remedies for relief.
cc: Senator James Meeks, State Representative David Miller, http://www.complaints.com/, http://www.clickservices.org/, River Oaks Toyota Owner Tony Cassello, River Oaks Toyota General Manager James Lebo
On October 21, 2005, I received correspondence from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, which had as an attachment a letter written by River Oaks Toyota. I have posted the cover letter of the Office of the Attorney General and the River Oaks Toyota response in the comment section of this writing. Please read to understand the following statement.
The Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois, avoids addressing the validity of my claim. I submitted appropriate supporting documentation with my argument. From what is written, which are the facts, no one in their right mind could come to a conclusion such as reported by Ms. Dolores Rodman, Citizen's Advocate, Consumer Protection Division.
It appears Ms. Rodman is "protecting" the perpetrator of this deceptive practice, River Oaks Toyota. No where in her correspondence to me does she outline why she came to the conclusion she did in closing my file on River Oaks Toyota. What she did was refer me, the consumer, to another exhausting remedy of "Small Claims Court, which I will pursue.
The Illinois Attorney General Office for the State of Illinois does not act on the behalf of its constituents under this regime. All voters must be aware of who they are voting for in their individual elections. Consumer fraud must not be part of "mainstream" thinking as is "sex offense crimes." I am a sex offense counselor. I know how vigorously Ms. Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General, acts in behalf of her constituents. Sex offenses are part of "mainstream" thinking because of its notariety. Ms. Lisa Madigan allows companies like River Oaks Toyota to operate as dipicted in my posted writing.
Regarding River Oaks Toyota's letter written by their General Manager, James Lebo, he reports River Oaks Toyota has been in business for over 30 years. I would like to know what does this have to do with clear deceptive practices as written by me. Mr. Lebo suggest they would not have met this "milestone" if they practiced what I have written. I beg to differ. If no one complains to the appropriate authority, allegations such as I have written will continue.
Mr. Lebo has yet to discuss or write to the Illinois Attorney General's office a defense to my allegations. He simply has not addressed my allegations, and what is more important, the Illinois Attorney General's office has not insisted he address the allegations. Instead, the Illinois Attorney General's office closes my file. Who side are they own? It surely is not the right side. It surely does not address justice and equality.
Mr. Lebo instead leads the Illinois Attorney General's office to my website, providing them with an exhaustive photocopy list of the writings I have posted on this website suggesting they are false claims made to the Illinois Attorney General's office. Mr. Lebo reports I have over fifty claims on my website. I guess Mr. Lebo cannot count either. Nevertheless, my website may well have over a 1000 writings about different social issues in the near future. What do these apples have to do with his oranges?
Mr. Lebo reports in his letter his attempt to resolve my issues. This is an outright lie. Mr. Lebo has not addressed any of my issues regarding the deceptive practice allegation. With this statement, we can assume they are continuous with other customers.
Mr. Lebo reports because his "attempt" to resolve my issues have failed, in his mind my allegations are closed. What arrogance!!! Mr. Lebo reports I lack understanding. I would like to know, as you (the reader)would like to know, what is there to understand about a deceptive practice. There is no misunderstanding. The allegations are clear and concise. I submitted documentation to the Illinois Attorney General's office to support my allegations. Nevertheless, Ms. Rodman dismissed my claims, evidently without examining or giving credence to the obvious deprivation of rights for the consumer.
Mr. Lebo needs to address the allegation of deceptive practices in his advertising. The Illinois Attorney General's office should have River Oaks Toyota address the issues I raised, especially the issue of deceptive practices in their advertising. If this is not addressed, the Illinois Attorney General's office for the State of Illinois condones this behavior of every other company operating within its boundaries.
What do you think as consumers? From reading the writing posted, how do you feel about River Oaks Toyota? If you want to respond and remain anonymous, please send an email. I will report your comment. We as consumers need to ask, request and provide a consensus on any company who deprives the consumer of the right to have a just and fair service from a business owner.
Fred Nance Jr.
October 5, 2005
River Oaks Toyota responds to the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.
River Oaks Toyota never addresses the issues of deceptive practices and advertising, and pricing rates. The Illinois Attorney General’s Office request Nance review this response and contact Ms. Dolores Rodman, Citizen’s Advocate, Consumer Protection Division of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, in writing within ten (10) days of Nance’s receipt of this response. Nance received this response in the U.S. Mail on October 5, 2005.
River Oaks Toyota’s response letter dated September 30, 2005, typed word-for-word, states as follows:
On July 19, 2005 Mr. Fred Nance Jr.’s wife brought his vehicle which is a 2003 Corolla in for service complaining that the check engine light was on and that the brakes were making noise also he stated that he needed an oil change. After the technician diagnosed the vehicle he found that the problem with the check engine light was that the fuel cap was bad and needed to be replaced. The ASM which was Todd Sobczak called Mrs. Nance and explained to what the vehicle needed as well as what the cost would be for the repairs. Mrs. Nance agreed to have the repairs done. Upon picking the vehicle up after repairs Mr. Nance disagreed with the cost of the repairs. At that time Todd Sobczak explained to Mr. Nance that the time spent on his vehicle is based on a flat rate labor time. Mr. Nance then wanted to speak to the Service Manager. Service Manager Sylvester Jackson explained to Mr. Nance and was not happy with the response. He proceeded to write a letter to his Colleagues. On Tuesday September 27, 2005 Mr. Nance called Service Manager Sylvester Jackson and stated that his brakes were squeaking and wanted to bring his vehicle in to be checked out. Service Manager told him to bring his vehicle in there would be no wait and no appointment needed. September 28, 2005 Mrs. Nance brought the vehicle in at 8:30 am for inspection to the brake problem. Service Manager Sylvester Jackson greeted Mrs. Nance and proceeded to write a service order to have her brakes inspected. Service Manager asked Mrs. Nance if she wanted to wait for her vehicle, she stated that she had to go to work and would pick up her vehicle after 3:30 pm that same day. The technician begins to inspect the vehicle and could not duplicate the problem. At 2:15 pm Mr. Nance entered the service department to pick up vehicle he was told the vehicle was not ready yet. At that time Mr. Nance became belligerent and due to his actions all of our customers that were in the waiting room as well as the showroom witness the slander against River Oaks Toyota. Mr. Nance had our customer un-eased. As Mr. Nance went to pick up his receipt from the cashier he begin yelling at Shawn Sprang one of our Sales Manager. Mr. Sprang told Mr. Nance if he didn’t calm down he would call the police. He demanded his vehicle then left.
Signed
Jim Lebo, General Manager
File Number – 132352
October 5, 2005
Office of the Attorney General
State of Illinois, Lisa Madigan Attorney General
Ms. Dolores Rodman, Citizen Advocate
Consumer Protection Division
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Re: River Oaks Toyota File # 2005-CONSC-00132352
Response to River Oaks Toyota Letter dated September 30, 2005
Ms. Rodman:
This is my reply to River Oaks Toyota’s response dated September 30, 2005. I, Fred Nance Jr., faxed copies of my letters to River Oaks Toyota on July 20, 2005 and September 28, 2005. River Oaks Toyota has working knowledge of all the issues discussed. The Illinois Attorney General’s Office supplied River Oaks Toyota with the same documentation they had already, which is what I gave the Illinois Attorney General.
River Oaks Toyota never addresses the issues of deceptive practices and advertising, and their pricing rates. Therefore, my allegations on deceptive practices and advertising, and pricing rates must be taken as true statements. Nevertheless, I, Fred L Nance Jr., will address the statements of their response letter. I will re-emphasize my allegations first.
River Oaks Toyota uses deceptive practices and advertising to get customer’s to service their vehicles. Their advertisement, specifically for the service we had with an oil change and brake service, never stated there is an additional labor charge to their promotion of a particular service advertised in their brochure, which has an expiration date of July 31, 2005. An example of an appropriate business practice of an advertisement, in this instance, is Royal Ford of South Holland, which is approximately a ¼ mile west of River Oaks Toyota. Royal Ford of South Holland advertised an oil change for about $24.95. I serviced my 1998 Nissan Altima on August 10, 2005 with this advertisement for an oil change. Royal Ford of South Holland listed their normal pricing on my receipt but subtracted it out through the “less insurance” item to reflect their “public” advertisement (invoice and advertisement attached). This is an appropriate business practice for advertisement (attached invoice and advertisement of Royal Ford). I can also give examples of Oil Express and many like companies advertising oil changes that do not add labor cost to their advertised cost unless listed in their advertisement. Therefore, I stand on my letters dated July 20, 2005 and September 28, 2005 as if set forth fully within this document.
River Oaks Toyota never addresses in writing the “deceptive practices and advertising or book hours” used for the labor cost. The labor charges I incurred were not reflected in their advertisement for the services (advertisement brochure attached). In addition, Toyota charged me an $88.00 labor charge for a gas cap I never asked for. I told Todd I could buy a gas cap for my car requesting he leave that item out of our cost. River Oaks Toyota charged me 4 hours labor for 2 hours of work.
Response to River Oaks Toyota letter (Toyota)
Toyota reports the technician diagnosed the vehicle needing a gas cap. Toyota’s gas cap cost $16.64. I was charged an $88.00 labor cost for Toyota replacing my gas cap, which my wife and I did not authorize. As I stated in my letter of July 20, 2005 5th paragraph, “she told him she would call him back.” In the 6th paragraph of this letter I report after my wife gave me the information about the analysis I called Todd Sobczak. Todd states Mrs. Nance agreed to have the repairs done. After my wife and I discussed the analysis, my wife called Todd back an authorized him to provide the brake service and oil change according to the advertisement, stating do not replace the gas cap. This is the agreement my wife had with Todd. River Oaks Toyota’s advertisement did not state that there would be a labor charge added to the advertised price. This is a deceptive business practice.
Toyota’s letter states Todd explained to me the time spent on the vehicle is based on a flat rate labor time. Whether this is true or not this flat labor rate flies in the face of the listed advertisement for the service rendered. The advertisement clearly does not state there will be a labor cost to the services advertised.
Toyota’s letter acknowledges me calling on September 27, 2005 about needing service to the brake service previously acquired from Toyota. Toyota’s letter states on September 27, 2005 the Service Manager told me that if I brought my vehicle in there would be no wait and no appointment needed. What the Service Manager really told me was that there is a first-come, first-serve policy. Nevertheless, if we use their statement it still flies in the face of a “no wait” policy, with my car being at Toyota without the work being done from 8:30 am to 2:00 pm.
The Toyota letter states, “Mrs. Nance brought the vehicle in at 8:30 am for inspection to the brake problem. Service Manager Sylvester Jackson greeted Mrs. Nance….” When my wife left home on September 28, 2005 to “drop” the car off as spoken about with Mr. Jackson and I on September 27, 2005, we arranged that I would be taking her to work and picking her car up when I contacted my brother. When Mr. Jackson informed my wife the work would be done in 1-½ hours he, Mr. Jackson, knew we were dropping the car off because of the conversation I had with the day before. This time frame had nothing to do with whether we would wait for the car or come back and pick the car up. This contradicts the statement Mr. Jackson made to me, which is the “first-come, first-serve policy of River Oaks Toyota or if we use River Oaks Toyota’s earlier statement in their response letter, where they state, “Service Manager told him to bring his vehicle in there would be no wait and no appointment needed.”
The Service Manager tells an outright lie about my wife. He reports in the Toyota letter that my wife stated, “…she had to go to work and would pick up her vehicle after 3:30 pm that same day.” In my letter dated September 28, 2005, I report the Service Manager, Sylvester Jackson, told my wife, in front of me and his service personnel, in a sarcastic manner, “I told you if you are going to wait for your car it would be ready in 1-½ hours, and that if you were leaving it, it would not be ready until 3:00 pm.” This contradicts the “first-come, first-serve policy of River Oaks Toyota. My wife told Mr. Jackson he did not say anything about 3:00 pm. My wife told Mr. Jackson she was gong to work, but this had nothing to do with what time she would pick it up. My wife and I discussed if I should pick up the car earlier in the day because of 1 ½ hour time frame set by my wife and Mr. Jackson upon entering into the service department.
The Toyota letter further states, “The technician begins to inspect the vehicle and could not duplicate the problem.” Now, this statement follows after the Service Manager’s statement in the previous paragraph, that is, “…and would pick up her vehicle after 3:30 pm that same day.” This would infer the technician’s inspection took place after 3:30 pm. According to Toyota’s invoice for September 28, 2005 my wife and I received our car at 1:58 pm. How could Toyota’s technician inspect a car he does not have in his possession? The invoice is attached and submitted with this letter and the letter of September 28, 2005.
The Toyota letter goes on to say I entered the service department at 2:15 pm to pick up my vehicle. Toyota’s letter states I became belligerent and due to my actions all of their customers witnessed me slander River Oaks Toyota. This sentence is really stretching the arms of a civil slander. In my letter dated September 28, 2005, I report talking about the character and behavior of the Service Manager Sylvester Jackson and Sales Manager Shawn Sprang. The Service Manager decided to hold our conversation about their deceptive business practices and advertising in front of everyone present. The Sales Manager decided to sit in his seat in the open showroom while we discussed the deceptive business practices and advertising of River Oaks Toyota. I did not have the accessibility to offer a private room to the Service and Sales Manager to discuss these issues. If their public heard our discussions it is because of the unprofessional conduct and behavior of these managers. Sales Manager Sprang decided he wanted to hold our discussion/conversation in the open showroom. He did not invite me into a private area to discuss my issues.
Toyota’s letter states, “As Mr. Nance went to pick up his receipt from the cashier he begin yelling at Shawn Sprang one of our Sales Manager.” I did not go to the cashier’s window to pick up our receipt. My wife went to the window and picked up the receipt. I went outside where our car was preparing to get into our 1998 Nissan to leave River Oaks Toyota. Toyota’s letter continues with “Mr. Sprang told Mr. Nance if he didn’t calm down he would call the police.” I reported in my letter of September 28, 2005 what really happened at this time. Starting on page 2, paragraph 6, I state, Mr. Sprang informed my wife and I that our car was outside waiting on us. Mr. Sprang told me that he suggest I find somewhere else to take my car and that he did not care if I never came back up to River Oaks Toyota stating he did not like that I addressed my complaint and issues of their services in the open area of their showroom floor further threatening to call the police on me for disturbing his showroom. I told him to call them. If Mr. Sprang had cause he would have called the police.
In conclusion, River Oaks Toyota attempts to cloud the issues of deceptive business practices and advertisement, along with labor cost attached to the service acquired from the deceptive advertisement. The River Oaks Toyota advertisement does not include a clause stating there will be an additional labor cost to the cost of the services listed. There is no disclaimer.
River Oaks Toyota distorts the truth to cover up the issues presented. River Oaks Toyota continued deprivation of services and retaliatory nature of acts presented are a direct result of the complaint filed Fred L Nance Jr. to the Illinois Attorney General’s office. This can also be inferred when River Oaks Toyota mentions in their letter that I contacted my “Colleagues.” River Oaks Toyota’s intention was to defame and insult my wife and I when we brought our car back for them to check the work they had done to our car.
My wife and I never instructed them to install a new gas cap with labor cost of $88.00 to our car. If we take there conversation as true when they state I was told that they would charge $88.00 to install a gas cap, I would be an idiot to go along with a charge of this caliber. No uneducated or demented person would have agreed to this charge to replace a gas cap. White people think they can say anything they want about a black person and the public will believe them.
Wherefore, I pray that the Illinois Attorney General’s Office finds River Oaks Toyota liable and in violation of laws and policies that protect the citizens of Illinois from deceptive business practices, advertising, and pricing.
Respectfully submitted,
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
September 28, 2005
Office of the Attorney General
State of Illinois, Lisa Madigan Attorney General
Ms. Dolores Rodman, Citizen Advocate
Consumer Protection Division
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Re: River Oaks Toyota File # 2005-CONSC-00132352
Complaint #2
Ms. Rodman:
This is a follow-up to my complaint dated July 20, 2005, which is filed with the Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois, Lisa Madigan, Attorney General. I received the Illinois Attorney General office’s response letter to my complaint on River Oaks Toyota dated September 16, 2005. I also received a response letter from Mr. David Miller, my Illinois State Representative for the 29th District, dated August 26, 2005, who directed me to your office regarding addressing my issues complained about on River Oaks Toyota. The River Oaks Toyota complaint of July 20, 2005 is also posted on http://www.complaints.com/. I will post this second complaint on http://www.complaints.com/. I will also post and publish this complaint, with the first complaint which is already posted and published, on http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/. I am faxing a copy of this letter and the original letter of July 20, 2005 to River Oaks Toyota, specifically to Mr. Shawn M. Sprang, General Sales Manager, who responded to my issues today, September 28, 2005.
On September 27, 2005 I, Fred Nance Jr., called and spoke to River Oaks Toyota Service Manager, Sylvester Jackson (black male), stating I wanted to bring my Toyota Corolla in on Wednesday September 28, 2005 for inspection due to the brakes squeaking. I reminded Mr. Jackson of my previous complaint against him and the service I received from River Oaks Toyota. Mr. Jackson stated he remembered me, and my complaint. I informed Mr. Jackson that the service I required had a direct link to the service I received from River Oaks Toyota on July 19, 2005. I asked Mr. Jackson what time should I bring the car in for inspection. Mr. Jackson informed me I could bring it in anytime because it would be evaluated on a “first-come, first-serve” basis.
On September 28, 2005 at approximately 8:32 am, my wife Darlene Bouyer-Nance arrived at River Oaks Toyota with our 2003 Toyota reporting the “brakes” were squeaking. The brakes were the primary repair service done at River Oaks Toyota on July 19, 2005.
I instructed my wife to ask for Mr. Jackson because of the previous problems we have had with River Oaks Toyota. I informed my wife I had talked Mr. Jackson on Tuesday, September 27, 2005. My wife reports, she informed Mr. Jackson of the problem with the brakes. My wife reports, Mr. Jackson informed her the car would be ready in 1-½ hours. I picked my wife up and took her to work. The car was supposed to ready by 10:00 am.
My wife and I returned to River Oaks Toyota at approximately 1:45 pm to pick up the car. Mr. Jackson informed my wife the car was not ready. My wife stated to Mr. Jackson that he told her it would be ready in 1-½ hours this morning. Mr. Jackson told my wife, in a sarcastic manner, I told you if you are going to wait for your car it would be ready in 1-½ hours, and that if you were leaving it, it would not be ready until 3:00 pm. My wife told Mr. Jackson he did not say anything about 3:00 pm. I informed Mr. Jackson that we wanted our car now. Mr. Jackson informed us that there had not been any work done on the car. My wife stated she was on her lunch break and wanted her car now.
I immediately became irritated at this behavior and character of acts displayed by Mr. Jackson. I asked to speak to his boss. Mr. Jackson stated “you are talking to him.” I asked to speak to the person who owned this business. Mr. Jackson informed me that person would be up in the front. I went to the front of the store asking a gentleman I passed if he worked here. The gentleman informed me he worked for River Oaks Toyota. I asked for directions to address my issues with the owner of River Oaks Toyota. The gentleman pointed to a space in the front of the store where there were approximately 3 white males and two white females.
I requested to speak to the owner of River Oaks Toyota. Mr. Shawn M. Sprang, General Sales Manager, informed me the owner was out of town, and that I could address my issues with him. I began articulating my issues and position scanning the faces of the 3 white males and two white females as I spoke. Mr. Sprang suggested that if I wanted to obtain some resolve to my issues, I should only address him and not talk as if I am talking to everyone else.
I articulated my “free-speech” rights guarded by the 1st Amendment of our Constitution. Nevertheless, I looked directly at him and stated, “What are you going to do?” I informed him of Mr. Jackson statements, listed above, that he did not have a boss. Mr. Sprang stated if Mr. Jackson is talking about the service department, he does not have a boss. I stated to Mr. Sprang, “I am talking about the person who owns this business as I said to Mr. Jackson.” Mr. Sprang stated he would go back to the service department to see what is going on.
Mr. Sprang came back to me stating the service department told him they told my wife that her car would be ready in an hour and half if she was going to wait for the car or it would be ready at 3:00 pm if she left. I told Mr. Sprang that they were lying and protecting each other. I also informed Mr. Sprang of the conversation I had with Mr. Jackson on Tuesday, September 27, 2005, Mr. Jackson stating, “Work is done to cars on a first-come, first-serve basis.” I also told Mr. Sprang what difference did it make if a person leaves their car or stays with their car if you operate on a “first-come, first-serve basis.”
Mr. Sprang informed my wife and I that our car was outside waiting on us. Mr. Sprang told me that he suggest I find somewhere else to take my car and that he did not care if I never came back up River Oaks Toyota stating he did not like that I addressed my complaint and issues of their services in the open area of their showroom floor. Mr. Sprang threatened to call the police on me for disturbing his showroom. I told him to call them. My wife and I left River Oaks Toyota without getting any follow-up service on a possible fault in the services received from River Oaks Toyota on July 19, 2005. River Oaks Toyota owes us the responsibility of their performed work on our vehicle.
My wife and I are black. The personnel of River Oaks Toyota disrespected us. We have suffered disparate and indifferent treatment, along with being discriminated against by Mr. Shawn M. Sprang representing River Oaks Toyota. Mr. Sprang does not treat his “white” customers as we were treated. If a company operates it auto service department on a “first-come, first-serve basis” it does not matter if one stays with their car or leaves it. Either way when an estimated time is determined for completion of the service, the service should be completed. The service to one’s vehicle should not be determined by whether they will wait on their car or leave it. This does not meet the criteria for “first-come, first-serve.”
I respectfully request the Illinois Attorney General’s office continue to press forward conducting a complete and thorough investigation into the issues presented in this letter and the letter dated July 20, 2005. I will hand-deliver this follow-up (complaint letter #2) letter to the Illinois Attorney General’s office located at 100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60601, on September 29, 2005.
cc: Mr. David Miller (fax copy)
Illinois Attorney General (fax copy Chicago & Springfield)
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
http://www.complaints.com/
www.riveroakstoyota.com
Mr. Shawn M. Sprang, General Sales Manager, River Oaks Toyota
Mr. Sylvester Jackson, Service Manager, River Oaks Toyota
Toyota Motor Corporation, USA, National Customer Relations
July 20, 2005
Toyota Sales USA
National Customer Relations
19001 South Western Avenue, Dept. WC11
Torrance, California 90509
Re: River Oaks Toyota – Case # 200507200135
Dear Sir/Madam:
I, Fred Nance Jr., am writing this formal complaint to Toyota Sales USA. On July 19, 2005 at approximately 7:45 am (CST), my wife, Darlene Bouyer-Nance, took our 2003 Toyota Corolla (1NXBR32E43Z023573) to River Oaks Toyota for automobile service. She informed Mr. Todd Sobczak that she needed her brakes fixed, the service light was on, and she needed an oil change. She presented River Oaks Toyota’s advertisement for discount on the brake service and oil change.
The Brake Inspection advertisement reads: Service includes: Inspection of rotors/drums, calipers and cylinders (brake pads and shoes for wear); Report of brake system condition or estimate of repair cost; and Inspection charge will be applied to repair cost if repairs are performed here; cost $29.95.
The Front Brake Service advertisement reads: Service includes: Replace front brake pads; Inspect front and rear rotors/drums; Check parking brake, inspect all hardware; Road test; cost $99.95.
The Oil & Service Change Service advertisement reads: Service includes: Up to five quarts of premium oil; Genuine Toyota oil filter; and Check all fluid levels; cost $23.95.
My wife called me at 1:44 pm (CST) on my cell phone informing me that Mr. Todd Sobczak called her informing her that she needed to replace the front pads, resurface rotors, clean and adjust rear brakes, oil change, replace gas cap, rescan computer and clear codes. He quoted a price of $545.00 with the coupons (advertisement). She told him she would call him back.
After my wife gave me this information, I called Todd. I asked Todd why was the price so high and why did the gas cap need replacing. Todd informed me that with the advertisement the cost was $445.00. Todd informed me that the car had to be put on a system to determine why the service light was on. Todd informed me that the computer determined that the gas cap was faulty and was losing pressure triggering the system to alert the driver by the service light coming on. I asked Todd why did I have to pay for a faulty gas cap. Todd told me that since the car had over 50,000 miles I must have taken the gas cap off more than 2000 times to put gas in the car. I asked Todd what does that have to do with a faulty gas cap.
I called my wife back telling her I had talk to Todd. My wife called Todd back. This had to be after 2:00 pm (CST). The work had not been done yet. Todd admitted this work did not start until after 2:00 pm. The work was completed at 3:55 pm (per invoice).
On July 20, 2005, my wife and I went to pick up our car. We received an invoice for $430.74. The invoice displays the time the service to the automobile was done. The time listed is 15:55 (3:55 pm CST). This is less than two hours. I asked Todd to explain why I was charged $343.75 for labor. First, Todd informed me that my car had been at River Oaks Toyota for more than 8 hours. I asked him what does that have to do with the labor cost. Second, Todd informed me that the guys who work on the cars have over 20 years experience. I asked Todd what does this have to do with my labor cost. Third, Todd informed me that the guys work on “book hours.” I asked Todd to explain “book hours” to me. Todd informed me that this labor cost is based on “book hours.” Todd reports that I was charged 4 hours labor for 2 hours of actual work done on the car. Todd did not explain “book hours” to me. Jackie of Toyota Customer Relations informed me later that Toyota developed “book hours” from a normal industry cost for repairs to an automobile.
I talked to Mr. Sylvester Jackson, Service Manager, who basically pushed aside my issues. I asked for his name. He gave me his card. I asked for Todd’s information, he instructed me to get Todd’s card from him. I asked for a corporate address, a vice-president of operations, and a phone number. He gave me 1-800-331-4331.
My River Oaks Toyota invoice for labor repairs reads:
Replace Front Brake Pads $ 88.00 Labor
Machine Front Brake Rotors 158.40 Labor
Clean and Adjust Rear Brakes 34.95 Labor
Replace Fuel Cap Assembly 88.00 Labor
_______
$ 369.35
The River Oaks Toyota invoice reports: Customer states check engine light is on? Check and advise, no charge. Customer states brakes are making noise? Check all 4 wheels and advise, no charge.
River Oaks Toyota post a sign reflecting a labor charge of $88.00 an hour for service on all vehicles in their shop area. This labor cost is not reflected in their advertisement. Most other automobile advertisement for services such as complained about do not charge labor cost, unless specifically mentioned in the advertisement.
Analysis:
River Oaks Toyota charged me for 4 hours of work when I actually had 2 hours of work done on my car. Todd informed me that his men have over 20 years of experience, reporting they work faster than the “book hours.” Yet, I was charged an extra 2 hours for labor not done.
With River Oaks Toyota charging 4 hours for 2 hours of labor, they are able to bill a customer 16-hours for an 8-hour labor day, if you use the criteria for measurement as illustrated here. This is preposterous, outrageous, contemptible, and ludicrous.
River Oaks Toyota has no “Customer Relations Manager” as most Toyota facilities have to expedite and examine customer complaints before it rises to levels of corporate interference in its affairs.
Toyota Sales USA should have a recall of all faulty gas caps for their vehicles if they cannot keep the pressurized system intact without creating a cost to the customer for repairs and replacement because of a service light coming on. I was told that the whole cap assembly had to be replaced. The invoice reflects this replacement also. I had to pay a cost for the rescanning of my vehicle and clearing of codes (whatever that means), and the resetting of the computer system to my car just because I had a faulty gas cap system. There is clearly something wrong here. I should not be paying the cost for a faulty system or the labor charges incurred because of it.
Therefore, I respectfully request a complete and thorough investigation into this matter. If deemed appropriate, I expect to be refunded monies for this overcharge and any and all other equitable remedies for relief.
cc: Senator James Meeks, State Representative David Miller, http://www.complaints.com/, http://www.clickservices.org/, River Oaks Toyota Owner Tony Cassello, River Oaks Toyota General Manager James Lebo
October 23, 2005
NICOR Services, Inc.'s Notorious and Nefarious Customer Service Personnel
NICOR, Inc.
Mr. Russ M. Strobel, Chairman, President & CEO
1844 Ferry Road
Naperville, Illinois 60563-9600
Re: NICOR’s Services Home Comfort Guard: Customer Service
Mr. Strobel:
Sir, this writing is not verbatim of the conversation between your representatives and myself. It is written according to the notes I took and my best recollection of events. Even though I tape-recorded the conversation, except for my cell phone conversation. I have not transcribed the tape and therefore, the content of this writing may not be in its “best” sequence of events.
I, Fred L Nance Jr., am a customer of NICOR Services Home Comfort Guard. I am in enrolled in your Comfort Guard Program. On November 11, 2005, Friday, I had an appointment for a “Clean-and-Check” of my furnace for the winter season. This appointment was for 5:00 pm. NO ONE SHOWED UP OR CALLED.
I called your customer service department at 1-800-373-1100 to check on my appointment at approximately 5:45 pm because no one had showed up or called. I talked to a male representative of your company who informed me my home was called on Thursday, November 10, 2005, reporting my appointment was cancelled and would be re-scheduled. I informed your representative I did not receive any calls, and there were no calls on my answering service at home or on my cell phone, which I receive calls 24-hours a day.
I asked your representative why was my appointment re-scheduled. He informed me it might have been cancelled because of other more important service request. I informed your representative I went through this same re-scheduling last year with my service call. Your representative stated to me, “if you went through this last year, why didn’t you call for an appointment in September?” I thought this statement was ludicrous.
I asked to speak to his supervisor. Your representative put me on hold for about 5 minutes. He came back to the phone and informed me his supervisor, Tad Ahuja, would call me back. Your representative took my phone numbers to call me back.
At approximately 9:00 pm, I called back because I had not received a call. I spoke with your representative Tina. I informed her of my earlier call. Tina reports there were no notes taken on the earlier call. Tina said she only had notes for October of 2005. This may have been the note for when I scheduled my appointment. I asked to speak to her supervisor. Tina informed me her supervisor, Tad Ahuja, was on another phone, but said he would call me back.
At approximately 9:10 pm, Tad Ahuja called me on my cell phone. The first thing Tad reminded me of was I called him and complained about this same issue last year. This means NICOR has my account targeted or labeled for harassment and intimidation (this statement will explain itself as you read the rest of this writing). Last year I reported Tad’s disrespectful, rude and nefarious character and behavior toward me to his supervisor. I am not sure of what supervisor I talked too. Evidently, Tad remembers the encounter or the results of my complaint/report.
Tad began hollering and shouting at me, on my cell phone, informing me he was the “call center manager”, telling me there were more important home visits than mine. Tad told me I did not have a 5:00 pm appointment. Tad said I had an “anytime after 5:00 pm appointment.” I attempted to talk over Tad’s boisterous voice informing him it was 9:00 pm and when was “anytime after 5:00 pm…” going to take place.
Tad continued to holler and disrespect me on my cell phone telling me about how an automated system called me telling me my appointment was cancelled on Thursday, November 10, 2005. Attempting to talk over Tad’s abusive, abrasive and boisterous voice, I informed him we would have dialogue not monologue to discuss this issue. Tad continued to talk loud with earsplitting tones. I informed Tad he should call me on my home phone. I informed Tad I had to get off of my cell phone. Tad informed me my cell phone was “the contact phone.” Tad continued to disrespect and dishonor my request. I hung up.
Tad called back on my cell phone. This is harassment. I can get and produce for your records cell phone records to verify Tad’s calls to my cell phone. Tad refused to call me on my home phone. I informed him I was not going to discuss this issue on my cell phone. I hung up again. Tad called me on my home phone. Tad asked me why couldn’t I talk on my cell phone. I was not going to answer such a demeaning statement. He continued to dictate and talk aloud about how his system tells him I was called and that is the end of the story. I informed Tad I did not receive any messages. I informed Tad I check my messages everyday, both at home and my cell phone.
Tad asked me did I want to re-schedule my appointment. I requested the President & CEO’of NICOR’s name, address, and phone number. Tad refused to give me your name continuing to force me to re-schedule my appointment. I requested Tad give me his supervisor’s name. Tad refused to give me his supervisor’s name. Tad continued to force me to re-schedule. I asked again for both names. I informed Tad I would find out who the President & CEO of NICOR is and place this writing on my website at: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/. Tad said “so what.” Tad then hung up on me.
I called back and spoke to Roger. I could hear in the background of our conversation someone prompting Roger about what to say to me. I informed Roger I could hear Tad giving him instructions on how to respond to my conversation. Roger continued the same conversation as Tad. I informed Roger I would be putting this incident in writing publishing and posting it to my website. I also informed Roger I had taped both him and Tad’s conversation. Roger informed me my conversation is also being taped. I stated, “good.”
I asked Roger for his last name. Roger stated we don’t have last names. I asked Roger for his corporate President’s name. Roger stated he was not going to give me his President’s name. Roger hung up on me. Roger called me back and told me he was instructed to give me Mr. Ahuja immediate supervisor’s name, which is Norm Lippelt telling me Mr. Lippelt’s phone number is 630-718-2755. Tad Ahuja refused to give me this information. It should have been recorded by NICOR. I requested Roger tell Mr. Lippelt to call me. Roger stated he was not going to take my message for Mr. Lippelt, and that I should call Mr. Lippelt. I asked Roger was he refusing to take my message. Roger stated he was not going to give Mr. Lippelt a message from me. This should be on NICOR’s recording.
Roger asked me if I wanted to re-schedule my appointment. I informed Roger I wanted the information for his corporate officer as I requested. I informed Roger I was not going to hang up my phone until I received that information. Roger and I stayed on the phone, without one word being spoken for about 15 minutes. I continued to refine the notes of this conversation with your representatives during the silence. Roger finally spoke stating I was trying to bait him into hanging up on me. I informed Roger he had already hung up on me once. Roger stated, “If I have hung up on you before, it must have been an oversight.”
I informed Roger I would not re-schedule my appointment until Mr. Lippelt called me. I accused your representatives of being racist and prejudicial toward my affairs. I hung up the phone. It was approximately 10:10 pm. Your representatives had me on the phone for over an hour disrespecting me with their condescending attitudes and nefarious tactics. Sir, if your customers are to expect this type of service, you should have no customers.
Sir, your corporate code of ethics statement for your employees and company, posted on your website states, in part, “…Corporate values and integrity have always been vitally important to Nicor's success. Our values and integrity allow us to have trusting relationships with our customers; they are the cornerstones for developing solid business partnerships and shareholder investments; and they help us attract and retain people with the highest ethical standards.Our integrity is determined in large part by one of our values- personal responsibility. At Nicor, each and every employee must take personal responsibility for building a culture where people are grounded in respect for others and in doing what's right. We must take personal responsibility for exercising common sense and good judgment in all that we do. And, when we have questions or feel there may be a violation of our values or ethical standards, it is expected that we each take personal responsibility for initiating an appropriate corrective action.”
This is not true according the statement made above. The employees I speak about in this writing do not share your corporation’s integrity and values. The employees mentioned above were rude, obnoxious, and nefarious with racial and prejudicial overtones of character and behavior. I make these accusations in the manner written because I am a mental health professional by degree. I have been working with characters and behaviors for over ten years, in-person and with clients/consumers/customers over the phone. I know what I am talking about. I will fax this letter to you at number 630-983-4229. I will call on Monday, November 14, 2005 to confirm your receipt. I have acquired the fax number on Saturday, November 12, 2005, for Mr. Tad Ahuja, which is 630-420-3407, from Greg, a representative of your company and NICOR services. I will also publish and post this writing on my website at: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/.
Sir, I informed Tad Ahuja and Roger I would publish and post this incident on my website. I informed them I receive many visitors to my website everyday. I informed them this writing could affect business and profits. Both Tad and Roger disregarded my statements, Roger once stating, “I was threatening him.” Sir, this is no threat. Publishing and posting this writing is a promise. It will be published and posted on my website on November 12, 2005. Your employees did not care about your business. Your employees have no concern or respect for the ethics and integrity you report on your website, which I have quoted what I believe to be part of this issue needing adherence.
As stated above, Tad Ahuja remembered our encounter from last year. He intentionally harassed, intimidated, and disrespected me. Evidently, there was no reprimand or representation from your supervisors for the character and behavior I reported last year. Nevertheless, Tad remembered well enough to retaliate against me in the issues presented here.
Sir, the public needs to know how your employees represent your company. The public needs to know how they will be treated if they complain or have concerns about the services of NICOR.
Sir, I was treated very badly. Tad and Roger’s character and behavior was notoriously wicked and evil. This type of conduct could only frustrate and infuriate a customer. It is my hope people review my letter, tell their friends and family, and seek services that will be amenable to strong commitment toward values, ethics, and the common good of man. This would be justice and equality for all.
Respectfully submitted,
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/, Mr. Russ M. Strobel, Chairman, President & CEO (by fax), and Tad Ahuja, Call Center Manager (by fax)
Mr. Russ M. Strobel, Chairman, President & CEO
1844 Ferry Road
Naperville, Illinois 60563-9600
Re: NICOR’s Services Home Comfort Guard: Customer Service
Mr. Strobel:
Sir, this writing is not verbatim of the conversation between your representatives and myself. It is written according to the notes I took and my best recollection of events. Even though I tape-recorded the conversation, except for my cell phone conversation. I have not transcribed the tape and therefore, the content of this writing may not be in its “best” sequence of events.
I, Fred L Nance Jr., am a customer of NICOR Services Home Comfort Guard. I am in enrolled in your Comfort Guard Program. On November 11, 2005, Friday, I had an appointment for a “Clean-and-Check” of my furnace for the winter season. This appointment was for 5:00 pm. NO ONE SHOWED UP OR CALLED.
I called your customer service department at 1-800-373-1100 to check on my appointment at approximately 5:45 pm because no one had showed up or called. I talked to a male representative of your company who informed me my home was called on Thursday, November 10, 2005, reporting my appointment was cancelled and would be re-scheduled. I informed your representative I did not receive any calls, and there were no calls on my answering service at home or on my cell phone, which I receive calls 24-hours a day.
I asked your representative why was my appointment re-scheduled. He informed me it might have been cancelled because of other more important service request. I informed your representative I went through this same re-scheduling last year with my service call. Your representative stated to me, “if you went through this last year, why didn’t you call for an appointment in September?” I thought this statement was ludicrous.
I asked to speak to his supervisor. Your representative put me on hold for about 5 minutes. He came back to the phone and informed me his supervisor, Tad Ahuja, would call me back. Your representative took my phone numbers to call me back.
At approximately 9:00 pm, I called back because I had not received a call. I spoke with your representative Tina. I informed her of my earlier call. Tina reports there were no notes taken on the earlier call. Tina said she only had notes for October of 2005. This may have been the note for when I scheduled my appointment. I asked to speak to her supervisor. Tina informed me her supervisor, Tad Ahuja, was on another phone, but said he would call me back.
At approximately 9:10 pm, Tad Ahuja called me on my cell phone. The first thing Tad reminded me of was I called him and complained about this same issue last year. This means NICOR has my account targeted or labeled for harassment and intimidation (this statement will explain itself as you read the rest of this writing). Last year I reported Tad’s disrespectful, rude and nefarious character and behavior toward me to his supervisor. I am not sure of what supervisor I talked too. Evidently, Tad remembers the encounter or the results of my complaint/report.
Tad began hollering and shouting at me, on my cell phone, informing me he was the “call center manager”, telling me there were more important home visits than mine. Tad told me I did not have a 5:00 pm appointment. Tad said I had an “anytime after 5:00 pm appointment.” I attempted to talk over Tad’s boisterous voice informing him it was 9:00 pm and when was “anytime after 5:00 pm…” going to take place.
Tad continued to holler and disrespect me on my cell phone telling me about how an automated system called me telling me my appointment was cancelled on Thursday, November 10, 2005. Attempting to talk over Tad’s abusive, abrasive and boisterous voice, I informed him we would have dialogue not monologue to discuss this issue. Tad continued to talk loud with earsplitting tones. I informed Tad he should call me on my home phone. I informed Tad I had to get off of my cell phone. Tad informed me my cell phone was “the contact phone.” Tad continued to disrespect and dishonor my request. I hung up.
Tad called back on my cell phone. This is harassment. I can get and produce for your records cell phone records to verify Tad’s calls to my cell phone. Tad refused to call me on my home phone. I informed him I was not going to discuss this issue on my cell phone. I hung up again. Tad called me on my home phone. Tad asked me why couldn’t I talk on my cell phone. I was not going to answer such a demeaning statement. He continued to dictate and talk aloud about how his system tells him I was called and that is the end of the story. I informed Tad I did not receive any messages. I informed Tad I check my messages everyday, both at home and my cell phone.
Tad asked me did I want to re-schedule my appointment. I requested the President & CEO’of NICOR’s name, address, and phone number. Tad refused to give me your name continuing to force me to re-schedule my appointment. I requested Tad give me his supervisor’s name. Tad refused to give me his supervisor’s name. Tad continued to force me to re-schedule. I asked again for both names. I informed Tad I would find out who the President & CEO of NICOR is and place this writing on my website at: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/. Tad said “so what.” Tad then hung up on me.
I called back and spoke to Roger. I could hear in the background of our conversation someone prompting Roger about what to say to me. I informed Roger I could hear Tad giving him instructions on how to respond to my conversation. Roger continued the same conversation as Tad. I informed Roger I would be putting this incident in writing publishing and posting it to my website. I also informed Roger I had taped both him and Tad’s conversation. Roger informed me my conversation is also being taped. I stated, “good.”
I asked Roger for his last name. Roger stated we don’t have last names. I asked Roger for his corporate President’s name. Roger stated he was not going to give me his President’s name. Roger hung up on me. Roger called me back and told me he was instructed to give me Mr. Ahuja immediate supervisor’s name, which is Norm Lippelt telling me Mr. Lippelt’s phone number is 630-718-2755. Tad Ahuja refused to give me this information. It should have been recorded by NICOR. I requested Roger tell Mr. Lippelt to call me. Roger stated he was not going to take my message for Mr. Lippelt, and that I should call Mr. Lippelt. I asked Roger was he refusing to take my message. Roger stated he was not going to give Mr. Lippelt a message from me. This should be on NICOR’s recording.
Roger asked me if I wanted to re-schedule my appointment. I informed Roger I wanted the information for his corporate officer as I requested. I informed Roger I was not going to hang up my phone until I received that information. Roger and I stayed on the phone, without one word being spoken for about 15 minutes. I continued to refine the notes of this conversation with your representatives during the silence. Roger finally spoke stating I was trying to bait him into hanging up on me. I informed Roger he had already hung up on me once. Roger stated, “If I have hung up on you before, it must have been an oversight.”
I informed Roger I would not re-schedule my appointment until Mr. Lippelt called me. I accused your representatives of being racist and prejudicial toward my affairs. I hung up the phone. It was approximately 10:10 pm. Your representatives had me on the phone for over an hour disrespecting me with their condescending attitudes and nefarious tactics. Sir, if your customers are to expect this type of service, you should have no customers.
Sir, your corporate code of ethics statement for your employees and company, posted on your website states, in part, “…Corporate values and integrity have always been vitally important to Nicor's success. Our values and integrity allow us to have trusting relationships with our customers; they are the cornerstones for developing solid business partnerships and shareholder investments; and they help us attract and retain people with the highest ethical standards.Our integrity is determined in large part by one of our values- personal responsibility. At Nicor, each and every employee must take personal responsibility for building a culture where people are grounded in respect for others and in doing what's right. We must take personal responsibility for exercising common sense and good judgment in all that we do. And, when we have questions or feel there may be a violation of our values or ethical standards, it is expected that we each take personal responsibility for initiating an appropriate corrective action.”
This is not true according the statement made above. The employees I speak about in this writing do not share your corporation’s integrity and values. The employees mentioned above were rude, obnoxious, and nefarious with racial and prejudicial overtones of character and behavior. I make these accusations in the manner written because I am a mental health professional by degree. I have been working with characters and behaviors for over ten years, in-person and with clients/consumers/customers over the phone. I know what I am talking about. I will fax this letter to you at number 630-983-4229. I will call on Monday, November 14, 2005 to confirm your receipt. I have acquired the fax number on Saturday, November 12, 2005, for Mr. Tad Ahuja, which is 630-420-3407, from Greg, a representative of your company and NICOR services. I will also publish and post this writing on my website at: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/.
Sir, I informed Tad Ahuja and Roger I would publish and post this incident on my website. I informed them I receive many visitors to my website everyday. I informed them this writing could affect business and profits. Both Tad and Roger disregarded my statements, Roger once stating, “I was threatening him.” Sir, this is no threat. Publishing and posting this writing is a promise. It will be published and posted on my website on November 12, 2005. Your employees did not care about your business. Your employees have no concern or respect for the ethics and integrity you report on your website, which I have quoted what I believe to be part of this issue needing adherence.
As stated above, Tad Ahuja remembered our encounter from last year. He intentionally harassed, intimidated, and disrespected me. Evidently, there was no reprimand or representation from your supervisors for the character and behavior I reported last year. Nevertheless, Tad remembered well enough to retaliate against me in the issues presented here.
Sir, the public needs to know how your employees represent your company. The public needs to know how they will be treated if they complain or have concerns about the services of NICOR.
Sir, I was treated very badly. Tad and Roger’s character and behavior was notoriously wicked and evil. This type of conduct could only frustrate and infuriate a customer. It is my hope people review my letter, tell their friends and family, and seek services that will be amenable to strong commitment toward values, ethics, and the common good of man. This would be justice and equality for all.
Respectfully submitted,
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/, Mr. Russ M. Strobel, Chairman, President & CEO (by fax), and Tad Ahuja, Call Center Manager (by fax)
October 21, 2005
Chicago Transit Authority
On October 21, 2005, I received a response from the CTA. I posted their response in the comment section of this posting. Please read the comment to better understand this comment.
It appears the CTA will address this issue. Whether they address it for the consumer or the CTA Union employee is another matter.
The CTA letter is signed by Terry Levin, Vice President of Customer Service. Mr. Levin alludes to the appropriateness of the CTA employee instructing me to try my bus card after I had put the card in the machine already. Mr. Levin suggest if I had tried my card again, and it malfunctioned later, I could have reported it to Customer Service and possibly received a refund. This is not the issue, and it is ludicrous.
The issue is the consumer receiving inappropriate service from an employee, which would have led to another exhaustive manner of relief as stated above by Mr. Levin, and that is, reporting the incident to Customer Service. A consumer should not have to go through this exhaustive measure when they have employees in place to eliminate this action. If the attendant personally viewed a customer buying a card that did not work when an attempt was made to access the "L", that card should have been voided by the attendant/employee and the consumer allowed access to "L" with another card. This action would have eliminated the consumer from another exhaustive remedy.
Mr. Levin does not address the issue using the platform I provided in my writing. I informed the employee to take the card and try it herself along with the request of the employee sliding it through the machine attached to her "cubby" station to give information on the card as to what is left on the card for access to the "L". If the attendant had acted professionally, she would have been able to determine if the card was defective or the turnstile was defective in reading my card.
To add insult to my injury, Mr. Levin uses my language of "argument" as to suggest a negative response from me to the CTA employee. I used the word "argument" because an argument can be constructive whether it is negative or positive. I use the word "argument" because of my litigation experience and the use of litigation terms. I could have used the word "discussion." What would Mr. Levin have said about this word? Nevertheless, I hope this issue does not get covered up as most issues do with the CTA management when addressing issues with a "Union" employee.
Fred Nance Jr.
October 12, 2005
Chicago Transit Authority
Ms. Carole L. Brown, Chairman
Mr. Frank Kruesi, President
567 West Lake Street
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Re: Employee 15785
Ms. Brown & Mr. Kruesi:
On October 12, 2005 at approximately 9:10 am, I, Fred L Nance Jr., went into the foyer of the 35th Street “L” at State Street to board the “Green” line to downtown Chicago. There were no other customers in the foyer. Employee 15785, who refused to give her name, viewed me from Booth P917 purchasing a transit card from Transit Card machine #7136. After retrieving the transit card from the machine, I went directly to turnstyle # 1105. I put my card in the transit card slot, as I have many times before at this “L” station, and the green light came on reporting “Enter”. I attempted to enter and the turnstyle would not turn.
I motioned to employee #15785 for assistance. Employee #15785 suggested I put the card back in the transit card slot. I rejected the idea stating the machine might construe this action as an additional action making my card void for future transferring. After much arguing this point, and other passengers entering through the turnstyle, I proceeded to put my card back in the transit card slot because employee #15785 was not going to provide relief from this situation. It was approximately 9:30 am.
When I put the card in, it did not work. After employee 15785 saw the card did not work she put her card in the slot, which allowed me to enter. Employee #15785 stated, “I shouldn’t do this because I told you to put the card in the slot a long time ago. I informed employee #15785 she has no power, she has a job; and she has to perform her job.
I was on my way to an employment interview scheduled for 9:30 am at Adams and Michigan. I should not have been harassed and intimidated as I was under the oppressive arm of employee #15785. I believe this is an unsupervised position she holds when working in this area. This employee does not seem to work well without supervision. Her character and demeanor was exceptionally unprofessional and discourteous. It appears, in this position, she believed she had some sort of special power over me because she could determine whether I could go or come. I was embarrassed and oppressed.
I do not believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Employee #15785 needs supervision and training. Please respond in writing.
Thank you.
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
Posted on - http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
It appears the CTA will address this issue. Whether they address it for the consumer or the CTA Union employee is another matter.
The CTA letter is signed by Terry Levin, Vice President of Customer Service. Mr. Levin alludes to the appropriateness of the CTA employee instructing me to try my bus card after I had put the card in the machine already. Mr. Levin suggest if I had tried my card again, and it malfunctioned later, I could have reported it to Customer Service and possibly received a refund. This is not the issue, and it is ludicrous.
The issue is the consumer receiving inappropriate service from an employee, which would have led to another exhaustive manner of relief as stated above by Mr. Levin, and that is, reporting the incident to Customer Service. A consumer should not have to go through this exhaustive measure when they have employees in place to eliminate this action. If the attendant personally viewed a customer buying a card that did not work when an attempt was made to access the "L", that card should have been voided by the attendant/employee and the consumer allowed access to "L" with another card. This action would have eliminated the consumer from another exhaustive remedy.
Mr. Levin does not address the issue using the platform I provided in my writing. I informed the employee to take the card and try it herself along with the request of the employee sliding it through the machine attached to her "cubby" station to give information on the card as to what is left on the card for access to the "L". If the attendant had acted professionally, she would have been able to determine if the card was defective or the turnstile was defective in reading my card.
To add insult to my injury, Mr. Levin uses my language of "argument" as to suggest a negative response from me to the CTA employee. I used the word "argument" because an argument can be constructive whether it is negative or positive. I use the word "argument" because of my litigation experience and the use of litigation terms. I could have used the word "discussion." What would Mr. Levin have said about this word? Nevertheless, I hope this issue does not get covered up as most issues do with the CTA management when addressing issues with a "Union" employee.
Fred Nance Jr.
October 12, 2005
Chicago Transit Authority
Ms. Carole L. Brown, Chairman
Mr. Frank Kruesi, President
567 West Lake Street
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Re: Employee 15785
Ms. Brown & Mr. Kruesi:
On October 12, 2005 at approximately 9:10 am, I, Fred L Nance Jr., went into the foyer of the 35th Street “L” at State Street to board the “Green” line to downtown Chicago. There were no other customers in the foyer. Employee 15785, who refused to give her name, viewed me from Booth P917 purchasing a transit card from Transit Card machine #7136. After retrieving the transit card from the machine, I went directly to turnstyle # 1105. I put my card in the transit card slot, as I have many times before at this “L” station, and the green light came on reporting “Enter”. I attempted to enter and the turnstyle would not turn.
I motioned to employee #15785 for assistance. Employee #15785 suggested I put the card back in the transit card slot. I rejected the idea stating the machine might construe this action as an additional action making my card void for future transferring. After much arguing this point, and other passengers entering through the turnstyle, I proceeded to put my card back in the transit card slot because employee #15785 was not going to provide relief from this situation. It was approximately 9:30 am.
When I put the card in, it did not work. After employee 15785 saw the card did not work she put her card in the slot, which allowed me to enter. Employee #15785 stated, “I shouldn’t do this because I told you to put the card in the slot a long time ago. I informed employee #15785 she has no power, she has a job; and she has to perform her job.
I was on my way to an employment interview scheduled for 9:30 am at Adams and Michigan. I should not have been harassed and intimidated as I was under the oppressive arm of employee #15785. I believe this is an unsupervised position she holds when working in this area. This employee does not seem to work well without supervision. Her character and demeanor was exceptionally unprofessional and discourteous. It appears, in this position, she believed she had some sort of special power over me because she could determine whether I could go or come. I was embarrassed and oppressed.
I do not believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Employee #15785 needs supervision and training. Please respond in writing.
Thank you.
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
Posted on - http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
October 08, 2005
Captial One & Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker and Moore LLC
Consumers: Be real careful about who you get credit cards from. Capital One's collections department attorneys will not work with the consumer's to alleviate an increase in their debt. They will not stop litigation from proceeding forward even though the court proceedings have not taken place yet. My daughter has offered what her income will allow as a college student with a part-time job. I was informed to day by Capital One's attorneys that it is not acceptable. I was informed by Capital One's attorneys that the litigation processes will continue and my daughter will incur more debt with her account. I have asked Capital One to take my family off their mailing lists. Currently, my son is receiving advertisement from Capital One to engage in credit.
Readers: What do you think Capital One should do? What do you think the collection company Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker and Moore LLC should do? Would you apply or think about holding an account with Capital One if you knew they would not work with you in paying your debt off if you incurred circumstances in your life where you were financially impoverished? Let's wait for their response. I will keep you posted.
October 11, 2005
Capital One
Mr. Richard D. Fairbank
Founder, Chairman, & CEO
P.O. Box 30285
Salt Lake City, Utah 84130-0285
Mr. Fairbank:
Sir, my daughter, Randi Nance, sent me an email reporting this conversation she had with Mr. Kenneth Peck of Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC. Is this the way Capital One wants to portray itself to the public. Randi’s email reports the following:
I called to speak to Kenneth Teck regarding my Capital one account, and he explained to me what Capital One was willing to agree to as a payment plan. He asked me if I had a job, what I was paid hourly, and other expenses that I occur monthly. He told me that Capital One will concur with a payment of $101.51 over a period of 90 days up until January 2006. I explained to Mr. Teck that with my expenses that I won't be able to afford this, he then told me that if I continue to use the excuse of being a college student, that I can throw that out the window. I told him that majority of Capital One's applicant's are college students because targeting this age group is an easy persuasion. College students offten look for the easy way out of having to make their money the right way. He then asked me to put myself in Capital One's position, and if I let someone borrow $1500 from me and told them how I wanted them to pay me back, but then they told me how they could pay me back. I told him that everyone comes across circumstances that is uncontrolable, but as long as I recieved my money I would be ok. Mr. Teck told me that it's different in their case because it's multiplied by thousands, why should my case be any different. I told him that teenagers make the mistake of acting on impulse, and that's what I did but I am willing to accept that I made a mistake and pay for it, but because of my income I'm only able to pay $44 a month. He told me that he would note the account that we spoke and I was notified of their payment plan and that I can argue my case in front of the judge.
Is Capital One going to let this action put my daughter and college student in further debt?
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
Advocate
cc: Ms. Gina Williams, Ms. Shanita Washington
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
This is how their customer relations department operates.
October 10, 2005
Mr. Richard D. Fairbank
Founder, Chairman, & CEO
Executive Office
P.O. Box 85699
Richmond, Virginia 23285-5699
Re: Customer Relations Department
Mr. Fairbank:
I, Fred L Nance Jr., am writing today to complain about the service I received on October 10, 2005 from Capital One’s customer relations department located in Georgia. I have spoken to Ms. Gina Williams of the Executive Office regarding this matter. She reports it is hard to locate someone where a last name and ID number is not given. Nevertheless, Ms. Williams reports she will exhaust every avenue seeking the individuals I am complaining about in this letter. Here are the facts.
On October 8, 2005, Mr. Trey Gill, account supervisor-employee #13E9, informed me I would have to call customer relations on Monday, October 10, 2005, to confirm receipt of a fax I was sending you at fax number 888-259-3021. Mr. Gill suggested I call number 800-955-7070. On Monday, October 10, 2005, I called this number.
Mr. Courtney answered my call reporting he was stationed in Atlanta, Georgia. I asked him if he had received a fax from me sent on Saturday, October 8, 2005. He asked for the account number for this fax. I gave the number. He informed me he could not talk to me about this matter because it was with a collection agency. He informed me I had to talk to the attorneys. I informed him I was engaged in communication with the attorneys, and just needed to confirm receipt of the fax to Mr. Fairbank as instructed by Mr. Gill.
Mr. Courtney stated he could not give me that information. I requested to speak to his supervisor. Mr. Courtney stated he did not have a supervisor present who could talk to me. I asked Mr. Courtney to let me speak to someone else in charge. I asked Mr. Courtney for his last name, and his employee ID number. This was at 9:35 am (CST). Mr. Courtney hung up on me. I called 800-955-7070 back (twice) and I heard his voice and hung up.
I called back again at 9:48 am (CST) and spoke to Mr. Dudley requesting to speak to a supervisor. I asked Mr. Dudley for his supervisor. Mr. Dudley asked me what did I want with his supervisor. I asked Mr. Dudley where was his office located. I asked Mr. Dudley for his last name and employee ID number. Mr. Dudley told me to hold on. Mr. Dudley refused to give me his name, employee ID number and office location.
Ms. Tracy, who reported she was a supervisor, came to the phone. I asked her where was her office located. Ms. Tracy reported her office was located in Norcross, Georgia. I informed her I wanted to file a formal complaint against Mr. Courtney in Atlanta, Georgia. Ms. Tracy informed me she was Mr. Courtney’s supervisor. I told Ms. Tracy what is listed above requesting a corporate address to write a formal complaint. I asked Ms. Tracy for her last name and employee ID number. Ms. Tracy refused to give me her last name, employee ID number, and any corporate information stating I did not need that information. I requested to speak to her supervisor. Ms. Tracy informed me she was going to end this call. I asked again for her last name. Ms. Tracy refused to give me her last name. Ms. Tracy informed me she was going to end this call again. Ms. Tracy hung up on me.
Because Mr. Gill gave me his last name and company ID number, I asked each one of these individuals for last names, their company ID numbers and their company locations. Mr. Courtney, Mr. Dudley, and Ms. Tracy refused to give me their last names and company ID numbers.
Therefore, this is a formal complaint against the individuals listed here. Please investigate and comment.
Thank you.
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Ms. Gina Williams, fax copy sent to 804-968-3580
October 8, 2005
Capital One
Mr. Richard D. Fairbank
Founder, Chairman, & CEO
P.O. Box 30285
Salt Lake City, Utah 84130-0285
xxx-xx-xx12
Account # xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xx79
Ref. #xxxxx92
Mr. Fairbank:
I, Fred L Nance Jr., am writing this letter in behalf of my daughter. My daughter, Randi Nance, is 21 years of age. She is a 3rd year student attending Southern Illinois University. She is a Criminal Justice Major.
My daughter is the owner of account xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xx79. Due to her financial hardships with financial and educational debt, she engaged the services of American Financial Solutions (AFS), a debt management company, to satisfy this account. On or about October 7, 2005, my daughter received a notice from AFS stating Capital One rejected her proposal and payment of $44.00.
On October 8, 2005, I talked with your debt management department, specifically Mr. Trey Gill Account Supervisor #13E9, who reports once a debt has reached 180 days Capital One refers the debt to a collection company. The collection company selected by Capital One is Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Miller, LLC (Blatt). Blatt filed a lawsuit against my daughter for the debt owed to Capital One.
On August 29, 2005, my daughter submitted a motion to dismiss Blatt’s suit because she has entered into a payment arrangement with AFS to payoff this debt. My daughter mailed a hard copy of this motion to Blatt’s office on August 29, 2005. Blatt has working knowledge of the motion filed by my daughter. The issue here is the acceptance of the agreement between my daughter and the collection agency, which Capital One employs.
I assisted my daughter in researching her issues allowing her to write and submit her motion in good faith. To avoid further financial disaster to my daughter with the legal cost due to the litigation processes, she request her AFS proposal be accepted by Blatt to fulfill the obligations of the debt incurred. If a person in good faith petitions AFS, Capital One, and Blatt to also act in good faith it should. Whether it goes to court or the AFS proposal is accepted, my daughter can only afford $44.00 a month to satisfy the debt. Any further debt to her, about this account, would surely be an undue burden. I am sure since Blatt has only filed a petition in the court, dropping it at this stage has only a minimal cost added to my daughter’s account. Blatt’s personal appearance will surely drive the cost of the litigation up. This letter and my daughter’s petition can surely be construed as mediation tools leading to comprise to satisfy the debt owed to Capital One. The courts generally suggest the same by asking the parties in litigation to talk with each other to see if comprise can be accomplished to avoid litigation. This is a role of the court, and that is to avoid the litigation processes. Not every case goes to trial.
I know Capital One is in the business of making money. This is a reality. Nevertheless, Capital One is also in the business of protecting a customer’s dignity and honor with its present policies and procedures. Capital One is not in the business to drive one to financial ruin, especially our young who may continue their experience with credit and debt in a more responsible way. This will be an experience to Randi she will never forget. This issue assuredly will assist in her endeavors as she learns of the criminal justice system and other legal issues of the day.
Therefore, it is our hope Capital One, Blatt and Randi can come to this comprise to satisfy the debt incurred without Randi incurring more debt through the litigation processes. This is a wonderful issue for my Blog: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/. I will post this letter and my daughter’s motion to alert the public to issues, which arise from debt and the companies who hold the debt. In order for the public to make better choices and informed decisions about who they should hold debt with, they need to know how a company such as Capital One handles a debt where the debtor attempts to satisfy the debt.
If this comprise is acceptable please call Randi at xxx.xxx-xx94. Randi alerted Blatt she had a class on Wednesday morning. The Clerk of the Court for Jackson County only holds this type of case on Wednesday. This case is up in court on Wednesday, October 12, 2005. Blatt can accept this proposal and cancel the court date in Jackson County if they want to act in good faith and avoid further cost to my daughter, that being financial and educational. Please do not take my daughter’s educational processes away by making her attend a court call where her proposal for payment will be the same as stated in this letter. She is testing and on the back end of her classes.
Randi and I want to thank you, in advance, for your discernment and consideration in this matter. Randi, Blatt and Capital One can agree in writing, without court litigation and cost, to the payment of arrangements of AFS with the added expense/cost of Blatt’s involvement with the court. There is and should be a cost to Randi for Blatt’s involvement. Randi should have been more responsible toward her debt. Randi should have started the arrangements with AFS, as I did, before it became a process of litigation. I went through this same process with AFS, Sears and their attempt to litigate. We agreed before court, without litigation and further cost to my account. I am faxing this letter to Blatt with a hard copy in the mail. I am faxing this letter and motion to 888-259-3021 and mailing a hard copy to Mr. Fairbank.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 1st JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
JACKSON COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Capital One Bank, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 05-SC 652
) Capital One Bank
Randi Nance, ) Acct. # xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xx79
Defendant. )
NOTICE OF MOTION
Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore LLC
125 South Wacker Drive, Suite 400
Chicago, Illinois 60606-4440
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 29, 2005 the defendant will file with the Jackson County Court her Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint or in the alternative Continuance, a copy of which is hereto attached and served upon the party(s) above.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Randi Nance, pro se defendant certify I caused the above Notice and attached motion with exhibits to be served upon the party(s) above by placing it in the U.S. Mail on August 29, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
Randi Nance
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 1ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
JACKSON COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Capital One Bank, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 05-SC 652
)
Randi Nance, )
Defendant. )
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint or in the alternative Continuance
Now Comes, pro se defendant, Randi Nance, respectfully requesting this Honorable Court dismiss or in the alternative continue this matter. The defendant reports the following to support dismissal or in the alternative continuance.
The defendant is a “pro se” litigant requesting this Honorable Court should liberally construe her motion. Castro v. United States, 290 F.3d 1270 (2003) reports courts sometimes will ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a different legal category. See, e.g., Raineri v. United States, 233 F.3d 96, 100 (CA1 2000); United States v. Detrich, 940 F.2d 37, 38 (CA2 1991); United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (CA3 1999); Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 528, n. 1 (CA4 1970); United States v. Santora, 711 F.2d 41, 42 (CA5 1983); United States v. McDowell, 305 F.2d 12, 14 (CA6 1962); Henderson v. United States, 264 F.3d 709, 711 (CA7 2001); McIntyre v. United States, 508 F.2d 403, n. 1 (CA8 1975) (per curiam); United States v. Eatinger, 902 F.2d 1383, 1385 (CA9 1990) (per curiam); United States v. Kelly, 235 F.3d 1238, 1242 (CA10 2000); United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 625 (CA11 1990); United States v. Tindle, 522 F.2d 689, 693 (CADC 1975) (per curiam).This Court may do so in order to avoid an unnecessary dismissal, e.g., id., at 692—693, to avoid inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), or to create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its underlying legal basis. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10 (1980) (per curiam); Andrews v. United States, 373 U.S. 334 (1963).
1. The defendant is currently attending Southern Illinois University Campus as a 3rd year student this fall semester.
2. Over the years of the defendant’s college education has incurred over $2500 worth of debt, which includes Capital One Bank, Ref # xxxxx92.
3. The defendant has enrolled with American Financial Solutions (AFS), a debt management program.
4. In this program the defendant is able to pay off all of her debtors with a monthly fee.
5. Capital One Bank, reference # xxxxx92, is listed for payment with AFS (attached payment plan with AFS).
6. This is the only avenue or way the defendant can pay her debt off with Capital One Bank.
7. Capital One Bank and AFS have a working relationship and agreement with AFS as a debt management company.
8. My father, Fred L Nance Jr., has AFS as his debt management company paying off Capital One Bank for debt he incurred.
9. My father had two accounts with Capital One Bank, Account #’s xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xx53 and xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xx18; Account # xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xx18 has been paid off by AFS. Account # xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xx53 is still being paid off.
10. The defendant will attach the AFS Repayment Schedule and Debt Management Agreement to this motion.
11. On Wednesday, August 31, 2005, at 9:00 am the defendant is summoned to appear in this Honorable Court for the claim amount of $1533.45 that is owed to Capital One Bank.
12. The defendant has a class on the morning August 31, 2005 at 10:00 am, and because it is the beginning of the year the defendant would hate to start missing classes.
Wherefore, the defendant respectfully request the following: (a) that this matter be dismissed, without prejudice, and become moot due to the arrangements made with American Financial Solutions; or in the alternative (b) Continue this matter for the reasons stated above in paragraph # 12.
If this Honorable Court and Opposing Counsel agree to dismiss this claim brought by plaintiff, would the Court please mail a copy of an “agreed” order stating the plaintiff and defendant agree to abide by the agreement made with American Financial Solutions to pay Capital One Bank in the amount of $44.00 a month, that is at least 2% of the total debt owed to Capital One Bank; and that this Honorable Court will not charge the defendant any court cost or fees because of the defendant’s indigent status.
Respectfully submitted,
Randi Nance
Readers: What do you think Capital One should do? What do you think the collection company Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker and Moore LLC should do? Would you apply or think about holding an account with Capital One if you knew they would not work with you in paying your debt off if you incurred circumstances in your life where you were financially impoverished? Let's wait for their response. I will keep you posted.
October 11, 2005
Capital One
Mr. Richard D. Fairbank
Founder, Chairman, & CEO
P.O. Box 30285
Salt Lake City, Utah 84130-0285
Mr. Fairbank:
Sir, my daughter, Randi Nance, sent me an email reporting this conversation she had with Mr. Kenneth Peck of Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC. Is this the way Capital One wants to portray itself to the public. Randi’s email reports the following:
I called to speak to Kenneth Teck regarding my Capital one account, and he explained to me what Capital One was willing to agree to as a payment plan. He asked me if I had a job, what I was paid hourly, and other expenses that I occur monthly. He told me that Capital One will concur with a payment of $101.51 over a period of 90 days up until January 2006. I explained to Mr. Teck that with my expenses that I won't be able to afford this, he then told me that if I continue to use the excuse of being a college student, that I can throw that out the window. I told him that majority of Capital One's applicant's are college students because targeting this age group is an easy persuasion. College students offten look for the easy way out of having to make their money the right way. He then asked me to put myself in Capital One's position, and if I let someone borrow $1500 from me and told them how I wanted them to pay me back, but then they told me how they could pay me back. I told him that everyone comes across circumstances that is uncontrolable, but as long as I recieved my money I would be ok. Mr. Teck told me that it's different in their case because it's multiplied by thousands, why should my case be any different. I told him that teenagers make the mistake of acting on impulse, and that's what I did but I am willing to accept that I made a mistake and pay for it, but because of my income I'm only able to pay $44 a month. He told me that he would note the account that we spoke and I was notified of their payment plan and that I can argue my case in front of the judge.
Is Capital One going to let this action put my daughter and college student in further debt?
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
Advocate
cc: Ms. Gina Williams, Ms. Shanita Washington
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
This is how their customer relations department operates.
October 10, 2005
Mr. Richard D. Fairbank
Founder, Chairman, & CEO
Executive Office
P.O. Box 85699
Richmond, Virginia 23285-5699
Re: Customer Relations Department
Mr. Fairbank:
I, Fred L Nance Jr., am writing today to complain about the service I received on October 10, 2005 from Capital One’s customer relations department located in Georgia. I have spoken to Ms. Gina Williams of the Executive Office regarding this matter. She reports it is hard to locate someone where a last name and ID number is not given. Nevertheless, Ms. Williams reports she will exhaust every avenue seeking the individuals I am complaining about in this letter. Here are the facts.
On October 8, 2005, Mr. Trey Gill, account supervisor-employee #13E9, informed me I would have to call customer relations on Monday, October 10, 2005, to confirm receipt of a fax I was sending you at fax number 888-259-3021. Mr. Gill suggested I call number 800-955-7070. On Monday, October 10, 2005, I called this number.
Mr. Courtney answered my call reporting he was stationed in Atlanta, Georgia. I asked him if he had received a fax from me sent on Saturday, October 8, 2005. He asked for the account number for this fax. I gave the number. He informed me he could not talk to me about this matter because it was with a collection agency. He informed me I had to talk to the attorneys. I informed him I was engaged in communication with the attorneys, and just needed to confirm receipt of the fax to Mr. Fairbank as instructed by Mr. Gill.
Mr. Courtney stated he could not give me that information. I requested to speak to his supervisor. Mr. Courtney stated he did not have a supervisor present who could talk to me. I asked Mr. Courtney to let me speak to someone else in charge. I asked Mr. Courtney for his last name, and his employee ID number. This was at 9:35 am (CST). Mr. Courtney hung up on me. I called 800-955-7070 back (twice) and I heard his voice and hung up.
I called back again at 9:48 am (CST) and spoke to Mr. Dudley requesting to speak to a supervisor. I asked Mr. Dudley for his supervisor. Mr. Dudley asked me what did I want with his supervisor. I asked Mr. Dudley where was his office located. I asked Mr. Dudley for his last name and employee ID number. Mr. Dudley told me to hold on. Mr. Dudley refused to give me his name, employee ID number and office location.
Ms. Tracy, who reported she was a supervisor, came to the phone. I asked her where was her office located. Ms. Tracy reported her office was located in Norcross, Georgia. I informed her I wanted to file a formal complaint against Mr. Courtney in Atlanta, Georgia. Ms. Tracy informed me she was Mr. Courtney’s supervisor. I told Ms. Tracy what is listed above requesting a corporate address to write a formal complaint. I asked Ms. Tracy for her last name and employee ID number. Ms. Tracy refused to give me her last name, employee ID number, and any corporate information stating I did not need that information. I requested to speak to her supervisor. Ms. Tracy informed me she was going to end this call. I asked again for her last name. Ms. Tracy refused to give me her last name. Ms. Tracy informed me she was going to end this call again. Ms. Tracy hung up on me.
Because Mr. Gill gave me his last name and company ID number, I asked each one of these individuals for last names, their company ID numbers and their company locations. Mr. Courtney, Mr. Dudley, and Ms. Tracy refused to give me their last names and company ID numbers.
Therefore, this is a formal complaint against the individuals listed here. Please investigate and comment.
Thank you.
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Ms. Gina Williams, fax copy sent to 804-968-3580
October 8, 2005
Capital One
Mr. Richard D. Fairbank
Founder, Chairman, & CEO
P.O. Box 30285
Salt Lake City, Utah 84130-0285
xxx-xx-xx12
Account # xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xx79
Ref. #xxxxx92
Mr. Fairbank:
I, Fred L Nance Jr., am writing this letter in behalf of my daughter. My daughter, Randi Nance, is 21 years of age. She is a 3rd year student attending Southern Illinois University. She is a Criminal Justice Major.
My daughter is the owner of account xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xx79. Due to her financial hardships with financial and educational debt, she engaged the services of American Financial Solutions (AFS), a debt management company, to satisfy this account. On or about October 7, 2005, my daughter received a notice from AFS stating Capital One rejected her proposal and payment of $44.00.
On October 8, 2005, I talked with your debt management department, specifically Mr. Trey Gill Account Supervisor #13E9, who reports once a debt has reached 180 days Capital One refers the debt to a collection company. The collection company selected by Capital One is Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Miller, LLC (Blatt). Blatt filed a lawsuit against my daughter for the debt owed to Capital One.
On August 29, 2005, my daughter submitted a motion to dismiss Blatt’s suit because she has entered into a payment arrangement with AFS to payoff this debt. My daughter mailed a hard copy of this motion to Blatt’s office on August 29, 2005. Blatt has working knowledge of the motion filed by my daughter. The issue here is the acceptance of the agreement between my daughter and the collection agency, which Capital One employs.
I assisted my daughter in researching her issues allowing her to write and submit her motion in good faith. To avoid further financial disaster to my daughter with the legal cost due to the litigation processes, she request her AFS proposal be accepted by Blatt to fulfill the obligations of the debt incurred. If a person in good faith petitions AFS, Capital One, and Blatt to also act in good faith it should. Whether it goes to court or the AFS proposal is accepted, my daughter can only afford $44.00 a month to satisfy the debt. Any further debt to her, about this account, would surely be an undue burden. I am sure since Blatt has only filed a petition in the court, dropping it at this stage has only a minimal cost added to my daughter’s account. Blatt’s personal appearance will surely drive the cost of the litigation up. This letter and my daughter’s petition can surely be construed as mediation tools leading to comprise to satisfy the debt owed to Capital One. The courts generally suggest the same by asking the parties in litigation to talk with each other to see if comprise can be accomplished to avoid litigation. This is a role of the court, and that is to avoid the litigation processes. Not every case goes to trial.
I know Capital One is in the business of making money. This is a reality. Nevertheless, Capital One is also in the business of protecting a customer’s dignity and honor with its present policies and procedures. Capital One is not in the business to drive one to financial ruin, especially our young who may continue their experience with credit and debt in a more responsible way. This will be an experience to Randi she will never forget. This issue assuredly will assist in her endeavors as she learns of the criminal justice system and other legal issues of the day.
Therefore, it is our hope Capital One, Blatt and Randi can come to this comprise to satisfy the debt incurred without Randi incurring more debt through the litigation processes. This is a wonderful issue for my Blog: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/. I will post this letter and my daughter’s motion to alert the public to issues, which arise from debt and the companies who hold the debt. In order for the public to make better choices and informed decisions about who they should hold debt with, they need to know how a company such as Capital One handles a debt where the debtor attempts to satisfy the debt.
If this comprise is acceptable please call Randi at xxx.xxx-xx94. Randi alerted Blatt she had a class on Wednesday morning. The Clerk of the Court for Jackson County only holds this type of case on Wednesday. This case is up in court on Wednesday, October 12, 2005. Blatt can accept this proposal and cancel the court date in Jackson County if they want to act in good faith and avoid further cost to my daughter, that being financial and educational. Please do not take my daughter’s educational processes away by making her attend a court call where her proposal for payment will be the same as stated in this letter. She is testing and on the back end of her classes.
Randi and I want to thank you, in advance, for your discernment and consideration in this matter. Randi, Blatt and Capital One can agree in writing, without court litigation and cost, to the payment of arrangements of AFS with the added expense/cost of Blatt’s involvement with the court. There is and should be a cost to Randi for Blatt’s involvement. Randi should have been more responsible toward her debt. Randi should have started the arrangements with AFS, as I did, before it became a process of litigation. I went through this same process with AFS, Sears and their attempt to litigate. We agreed before court, without litigation and further cost to my account. I am faxing this letter to Blatt with a hard copy in the mail. I am faxing this letter and motion to 888-259-3021 and mailing a hard copy to Mr. Fairbank.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 1st JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
JACKSON COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Capital One Bank, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 05-SC 652
) Capital One Bank
Randi Nance, ) Acct. # xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xx79
Defendant. )
NOTICE OF MOTION
Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore LLC
125 South Wacker Drive, Suite 400
Chicago, Illinois 60606-4440
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 29, 2005 the defendant will file with the Jackson County Court her Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint or in the alternative Continuance, a copy of which is hereto attached and served upon the party(s) above.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Randi Nance, pro se defendant certify I caused the above Notice and attached motion with exhibits to be served upon the party(s) above by placing it in the U.S. Mail on August 29, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
Randi Nance
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 1ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
JACKSON COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Capital One Bank, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 05-SC 652
)
Randi Nance, )
Defendant. )
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint or in the alternative Continuance
Now Comes, pro se defendant, Randi Nance, respectfully requesting this Honorable Court dismiss or in the alternative continue this matter. The defendant reports the following to support dismissal or in the alternative continuance.
The defendant is a “pro se” litigant requesting this Honorable Court should liberally construe her motion. Castro v. United States, 290 F.3d 1270 (2003) reports courts sometimes will ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a different legal category. See, e.g., Raineri v. United States, 233 F.3d 96, 100 (CA1 2000); United States v. Detrich, 940 F.2d 37, 38 (CA2 1991); United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (CA3 1999); Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 528, n. 1 (CA4 1970); United States v. Santora, 711 F.2d 41, 42 (CA5 1983); United States v. McDowell, 305 F.2d 12, 14 (CA6 1962); Henderson v. United States, 264 F.3d 709, 711 (CA7 2001); McIntyre v. United States, 508 F.2d 403, n. 1 (CA8 1975) (per curiam); United States v. Eatinger, 902 F.2d 1383, 1385 (CA9 1990) (per curiam); United States v. Kelly, 235 F.3d 1238, 1242 (CA10 2000); United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 625 (CA11 1990); United States v. Tindle, 522 F.2d 689, 693 (CADC 1975) (per curiam).This Court may do so in order to avoid an unnecessary dismissal, e.g., id., at 692—693, to avoid inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), or to create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its underlying legal basis. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10 (1980) (per curiam); Andrews v. United States, 373 U.S. 334 (1963).
1. The defendant is currently attending Southern Illinois University Campus as a 3rd year student this fall semester.
2. Over the years of the defendant’s college education has incurred over $2500 worth of debt, which includes Capital One Bank, Ref # xxxxx92.
3. The defendant has enrolled with American Financial Solutions (AFS), a debt management program.
4. In this program the defendant is able to pay off all of her debtors with a monthly fee.
5. Capital One Bank, reference # xxxxx92, is listed for payment with AFS (attached payment plan with AFS).
6. This is the only avenue or way the defendant can pay her debt off with Capital One Bank.
7. Capital One Bank and AFS have a working relationship and agreement with AFS as a debt management company.
8. My father, Fred L Nance Jr., has AFS as his debt management company paying off Capital One Bank for debt he incurred.
9. My father had two accounts with Capital One Bank, Account #’s xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xx53 and xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xx18; Account # xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xx18 has been paid off by AFS. Account # xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xx53 is still being paid off.
10. The defendant will attach the AFS Repayment Schedule and Debt Management Agreement to this motion.
11. On Wednesday, August 31, 2005, at 9:00 am the defendant is summoned to appear in this Honorable Court for the claim amount of $1533.45 that is owed to Capital One Bank.
12. The defendant has a class on the morning August 31, 2005 at 10:00 am, and because it is the beginning of the year the defendant would hate to start missing classes.
Wherefore, the defendant respectfully request the following: (a) that this matter be dismissed, without prejudice, and become moot due to the arrangements made with American Financial Solutions; or in the alternative (b) Continue this matter for the reasons stated above in paragraph # 12.
If this Honorable Court and Opposing Counsel agree to dismiss this claim brought by plaintiff, would the Court please mail a copy of an “agreed” order stating the plaintiff and defendant agree to abide by the agreement made with American Financial Solutions to pay Capital One Bank in the amount of $44.00 a month, that is at least 2% of the total debt owed to Capital One Bank; and that this Honorable Court will not charge the defendant any court cost or fees because of the defendant’s indigent status.
Respectfully submitted,
Randi Nance
October 07, 2005
Founders Insurance & South Holland Police Department
On October 11, 2005, I am posting a request to Founders Insurance for legal remedies. This is the letter.
October 11, 2005
FOUNDERS INSURANCE COMPANY
Ms. Barbara Priorello, Subrogation Department
P.O. Box 5100
Des Plaines, Illinois 60017-5100
Re: CLAIM # 0105003666 – Accident of March 18, 2005
Ms. Priorello:
When we talked on or about October 7, 2005, you stated Founders Insurance would defend me in any court action taken against me in this matter. I appreciate the fact Founders Insurance will defend me, but to what extent. Will Founders Insurance file a counter-claim against Kemper or Allstate to include but not limited to medical expenses? My medical expenses are in the thousands of dollars.
I have incurred these and other expenses due to this accident. How will I be compensated? I know Founders Insurance reports I did not have Med Pay. The Health Care providers I utilized are seeking reimbursement. Founders Insurance, according to your conversation with me, is only seeking reimbursement of my “deductible” of $500.00, from Kemper or Allstate. This is ludicrous and absurd.
I do not know which insurance company I am supposed to sue for damages, at this time. I need an assessment in writing from you of the liability incurred and who is responsible and liable. We both know, from discussing the issues, Kemper is the first target. The police report and witnesses, which Unit 2’s son is also an outside witness, confirm and support Kemper’s liability. Unit 2’s son is listed in the documentation I sent to you or which you acquired from the file. You also have Ms. Laura Clemons 708-331-2291, listed as an outside witness to the accident. Have you acquired a deposition or affidavit from either of these outside witnesses?
Therefore, I request a written statement from Founders Insurance outlining the strategy, approach and possible outcome of this investigation and possible litigation.
Thank you.
Post: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
On October 7, 2005, I spoke to Ms. Barbara Priorello. It appears Founders Insurance is pursuing the matter in my best interest. The South Holland Police Department have not responded as of the date of this letter. It appears this operational procedure for handling automobile accidents, as reported by Officer Kremski, is a normal operating procedure for the South Holland Police Department.
October 7, 2005
FOUNDERS INSURANCE COMPANY
Ms. Barbara Priorello, Subrogation Department
P.O. Box 5100
Des Plaines, Illinois 60017-5100
Re: CLAIM # 0105003666 – Accident of March 18, 2005
Ms. Priorello:
On March 18, 2005 I was involved in a three-car accident at 170th and Langley. Involved in the car accident was Denise Lenting and her passenger Bonita Vasquez driving a Toyota Camry (Driver/Auto 1), license plate number 3472264, reporting Kemper as her auto insurance; Ms. Mary Ambrose and her son, Sullivan Ambrose age 14, driving a Lexus (Driver/Auto 2), license plate number 2720486, reporting Allstate as her auto insurance; and my car, Fred Nance, driving a Nissan Altima (Driver/Auto 3), license plate number 1268347, reporting Founders as my auto insurance.
On the date in question, the train had the westbound traffic blocked on 170th Street at Parkside Avenue. The train tracks are located at 170th Street and Parkside Avenue. The westbound traffic was stopped on the Westside of the tracks at 170th and Parkside Avenue. The accident occurred at 170th and Langley. Langley is approximately one (1) block east of Parkside Avenue. Driver/Auto 1 was driving southbound on Langley. Driver/Auto 1 came off of Langley Street, onto 170th Street and proceeded into the eastbound traffic without looking to see if there was any traffic traveling east on 170th Street. Driver/Auto 3 was traveling east on 170th Street in the outside lane closest to the curb. Driver/Auto 2 was traveling east on 170th Street on the inside lane.
Both Driver/Auto 2 (which was in front of the Nissan traveling south on Parkside Avenue approaching 170th Street) and Driver/Auto 3 turned off of Parkside Avenue to travel east on 170th Street. Driver/Auto 2 and Driver/Auto 3 were traveling approximately 10 to 15 miles per hour. We had just turned onto 170th Street, and the point of impact happened approximately one block away at Langley Street. There was an outside witness to the accident, Ms. Laura Clemons, license plate number C936809, telephone number 708-331-2291.
As Driver/Auto 1 came off of Langley to proceed onto 170th Street, Ms. Clemons blew her car horn continuously attempting to alert Driver/Auto 1 to the oncoming traffic, Driver/Auto 2 and Driver/Auto 3. Driver/Auto 1 ignored the warning. Driver/Auto 2 saw Driver/Auto 1 coming from between the cars and attempted to avoid the collision by coming into the lane of Driver/Auto 3. Driver/Auto 1 hit the front driver’s side wheel of Driver/Auto 2. Driver/Auto 2 was forced into Driver/Auto 3’s lane. Driver/Auto 3 attempted to avoid the accident by swerving in the direction (to the right, south) that Driver/Auto 1 was forcing Driver/Auto 2 to go in because Driver/Auto 1’s passenger side front bumper hit Driver/Auto 2 pushing it into the lane of Driver/Auto 3. Driver/Auto 2 came into Driver/Auto 3’s lane too quickly for Driver/Auto 3 to avoid striking Driver/Auto 2’s rear passenger side of the car.
Driver/Auto 2 and Driver/Auto 3 gave the above information to Officer Kremski of the South Holland Police Department (SHPD). Officer Kremski ignored the information about the witness, Ms. Clemons, stating that if she was a witness she should have stayed on the scene. I asked Officer Kremski why would she have to stay on the scene if she gave her information up freely to be contacted by SHPD. I asked Officer Kremski doesn’t he do an investigation into the facts of an auto accident. He informed me that he only questions people on the scene about auto accidents.
I asked him why didn’t he issue tickets so that a fact-finder, such as the courts, could get testimony and seek all witnesses. Officer Kremski informed me that because of his past experiences with traffic court and people not showing up, it has discouraged him from giving tickets at the scene of accidents.
On October 7, 2005, I called Founders Insurance Company requesting information on this accident due to my medical and other expenses. I was told my case was transferred to the subrogation department, and that Ms. Barbara Priorello was the investigator. I attempted contact but could only leave a message for Mr. Priorello requesting she call me.
On October 7, 2005, I was informed Founders sent a letter to Kemper Insurance on or about September 27, 2005. Founders reports Kemper sent a response letter on October 6, 2005 denying my claim stating, “Driver 3 was at fault for not keeping a safe distance from Driver 2.” If you examine the facts above, you will find this statement has no validity or rationale. Founders Insurance also disclosed a letter was sent to Allstate Insurance. As of the date of this letter, I was told that Allstate has not responded.
On October 7, 2005, I spoke to Ms. Pam Nardi, Assistant Vice-President, of Founders Insurance. I asked her what was Founders going to do, since Founders insured me at the time of this accident. I wanted assurance of indemnification. I wanted to know in terms of representation if I sued by Kemper or Allstate, what will be Founders’ position. I informed her Founders has a duty to defend me if Kemper or Allstate sues me. Ms. Nardi assured me Founders knows of their responsibility to me as an insured customer at the time of this accident.
Therefore, I will fax this letter to Ms. Barbara Priorello and mail a hard copy through U.S. Mail requesting a call to discuss the issues. I need to know who will pay my medical bills and other expenses incurred. I will also attach this letter and the letter sent to SHPD and others to my blog at: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/.
March 29, 2005
Mr. Don DeGraff, Mayor of South Holland Mr. Warren Millsaps
16226 Wausau Ave. Chief of Police, South Holland
South Holland, Illinois 60473 16220 Wausau Ave.
South Holland, Illinois 60473
Mr. Hollis Dorrough, Deputy Chief Mr. Barak Obama
South Holland Police Department 230 S. Dearborn St., Suite 3900
16220 Wausau Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60604
South Holland, Illinois 60473
Mr. Obama:
I would like this information to become part of the claim I submitted to the office listed above on February 11, 2005.
The South Holland Police Department (SHPD) continues to practice disparate and indifferent treatment. The blatant disregard and egregious treatment of African-Americans in South Holland continues on a regular basis. My complaints to this police department are ignored. I am never contacted by this police department to discuss my complaints. They will probably ignore me and this complaint as well.
On March 18, 2005 I was involved in a three-car accident at 170th and Langley. Involved in the car accident was a white woman (Denise Lenting) and her passenger (Bonita Vasquez) driving a Toyota Camry, license plate number 3472264; a black woman (Mary Ambrose) and her son (Sullivan Ambrose age 14) driving a Lexus, license plate number 2720486; and my car (Fred Nance, a black man) driving a Nissan Altima, license plate number 1268347.
Each person gave their account of the accident to SHPD officer Kremski, ID #106. I have written about this police officer many times coming to my house harassing and intimidating me (see documents I submitted to you on February 11, 2005).
On the date in question, the train had the westbound traffic blocked on 170th Street. The train tracks are located at 170th Street and Parkside Avenue. The westbound traffic was stopped at 170th and Parkside Avenue, East of the tracks.
The accident occurred at 170th and Langley. Langley is approximately one (1) block east of Parkside Avenue. The Toyota was driving southbound on Langley. The Toyota came off of Langley Street, onto 170th Street and proceeded into the eastbound traffic without looking to see if there was any traffic traveling east on 170th Street. The Nissan was traveling east on 170th Street in the outside lane closest to the curb. The Lexus was traveling east on 170th Street on the inside lane.
Both the Lexus (which was in front of the Nissan traveling south on Parkside Avenue approaching 170th Street) and Nissan turned off of Parkside Avenue to travel east on 170th Street. The Lexus and Nissan were traveling approximately 10 to 15 miles per hour. We had just turned onto 170th Street, and the point of impact happened approximately one block away at Langley Street.
There was an outside witness to the accident, Ms. Laura Clemons, license plate number C936809, telephone number 708-331-2291. As the Toyota came off of Langley to proceed onto 170th Street, Ms. Clemons blew her car horn continuously attempting to alert the Toyota driver to the oncoming traffic, the Lexus and Nissan. The Toyota ignored the warning.
The Lexus saw the Toyota coming from between the cars and attempted to avoid the collision by coming into the lane of the Nissan. The Toyota hit the front driver’s side wheel of the Lexus. The Lexus was forced into the Nissan’s lane. The Nissan attempted to avoid the accident by swerving in the direction (to the right, south) that the Toyota was forcing the Lexus to go in because the Toyota’s passenger side front bumper hit the Lexus pushing it into the lane of the Nissan. The Lexus came into the Nissan’s lane to quickly for the Nissan to avoid striking the Lexus’ rear passenger side of the car.
The Lexus and Nissan driver gave the above information to Officer Kremski. Officer Kemski ignored the information about Ms. Clemons stating that if she was a witness she should have stayed on the scene. I asked him why would she have to stay on the scene if she gave her information up freely to be contacted by SHPD. I asked Officer Kremski doesn’t he do an investigation into the facts of the matter. He informed me that he only questions people on the scene about car accidents.
I asked him why didn’t he issue tickets so that a fact-finder, such as the courts, could get testimony and seek all witnesses. Officer Kremski informed me that because of his past experiences with traffic court and people not showing up has discouraged him from giving tickets at the scene of accidents. This is ludicrous.
Officer Kremski interviewed the Toyota’s passenger, Ms. Bonita Vasquez, about the accident and reported her on the Illinois Traffic Crash Report as a “passenger/witness. Officer Kremski did not question or attempt to question the Lexus drivers’ son, Sullivan Ambrose age 14-years-old. The Lexus driver informed Officer Kremski that her son was a passenger in her automobile. Officer Kremski did not list the Lexus drivers’ son, on the Illinois Traffic Crash Report as a passenger/witness. When I questioned Officer Kremski about this, on or about March 23, 2005 approximately 5 days after the accident, he reported that it was his error, but he could not change the Illinois Traffic Crash Report. (I had been to the SHPD everyday after the accident but Officer Kremski reported off sick. I reported my issues to Lt. Pedric and Sgt. Tavanaro.).
This method of operation condoned by the SHPD creates more problems for people who have car accidents. If the police are not going to attempt to question “all potential witnesses” how will truth be determined? I have never heard of a police officer not having the duty to question any witness in a crime/accident where they were called upon to do so.
This has caused my insurance company to view the accident as if “fault” could not be determined by the SHPD. If it had been a “black” man or woman, the SHPD would have issued tickets. They would have called witnesses if a “white” person told them there were witnesses. It is mind-bogging to think that a police department, which is a fact-finder as legally defined, would not attempt to determine the truth of a matter by calling the phone number of a potential witness given at the scene by a participant in the accident or if the police officer did not want to bother with that approach, the police officer could have given everyone a ticket and let the courts figure it out.
If the car accident participant took the time to gather pertinent information at the scene of an accident, it would appear that the SHPD would act appropriately to the information. If this were a murder scene, would the SHPD ignore witnesses and testimony? I have been told several times by the SHPD that they operate on criminal matters, not civil matters. A traffic accident technically goes to criminal court and is identified by the criminal code. Officer Kremski had a duty to act on the information given to him to assist in fact-finding procedures.
If nothing else, he could have given tickets to all of us if he did not feel like getting involved. Then the participants in the accident could have presented our “evidence and witnesses” to the court. There is no reason in the world why Officer Kremski should not have interviewed the Lexus driver’s son, who remained on the scene of the accident. Officer Kremski’s reason for not pursuing witness Ms. Clemons is that she left the scene of the accident. This is disparate and indifferent treatment.
Please investigate.
October 11, 2005
FOUNDERS INSURANCE COMPANY
Ms. Barbara Priorello, Subrogation Department
P.O. Box 5100
Des Plaines, Illinois 60017-5100
Re: CLAIM # 0105003666 – Accident of March 18, 2005
Ms. Priorello:
When we talked on or about October 7, 2005, you stated Founders Insurance would defend me in any court action taken against me in this matter. I appreciate the fact Founders Insurance will defend me, but to what extent. Will Founders Insurance file a counter-claim against Kemper or Allstate to include but not limited to medical expenses? My medical expenses are in the thousands of dollars.
I have incurred these and other expenses due to this accident. How will I be compensated? I know Founders Insurance reports I did not have Med Pay. The Health Care providers I utilized are seeking reimbursement. Founders Insurance, according to your conversation with me, is only seeking reimbursement of my “deductible” of $500.00, from Kemper or Allstate. This is ludicrous and absurd.
I do not know which insurance company I am supposed to sue for damages, at this time. I need an assessment in writing from you of the liability incurred and who is responsible and liable. We both know, from discussing the issues, Kemper is the first target. The police report and witnesses, which Unit 2’s son is also an outside witness, confirm and support Kemper’s liability. Unit 2’s son is listed in the documentation I sent to you or which you acquired from the file. You also have Ms. Laura Clemons 708-331-2291, listed as an outside witness to the accident. Have you acquired a deposition or affidavit from either of these outside witnesses?
Therefore, I request a written statement from Founders Insurance outlining the strategy, approach and possible outcome of this investigation and possible litigation.
Thank you.
Post: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
On October 7, 2005, I spoke to Ms. Barbara Priorello. It appears Founders Insurance is pursuing the matter in my best interest. The South Holland Police Department have not responded as of the date of this letter. It appears this operational procedure for handling automobile accidents, as reported by Officer Kremski, is a normal operating procedure for the South Holland Police Department.
October 7, 2005
FOUNDERS INSURANCE COMPANY
Ms. Barbara Priorello, Subrogation Department
P.O. Box 5100
Des Plaines, Illinois 60017-5100
Re: CLAIM # 0105003666 – Accident of March 18, 2005
Ms. Priorello:
On March 18, 2005 I was involved in a three-car accident at 170th and Langley. Involved in the car accident was Denise Lenting and her passenger Bonita Vasquez driving a Toyota Camry (Driver/Auto 1), license plate number 3472264, reporting Kemper as her auto insurance; Ms. Mary Ambrose and her son, Sullivan Ambrose age 14, driving a Lexus (Driver/Auto 2), license plate number 2720486, reporting Allstate as her auto insurance; and my car, Fred Nance, driving a Nissan Altima (Driver/Auto 3), license plate number 1268347, reporting Founders as my auto insurance.
On the date in question, the train had the westbound traffic blocked on 170th Street at Parkside Avenue. The train tracks are located at 170th Street and Parkside Avenue. The westbound traffic was stopped on the Westside of the tracks at 170th and Parkside Avenue. The accident occurred at 170th and Langley. Langley is approximately one (1) block east of Parkside Avenue. Driver/Auto 1 was driving southbound on Langley. Driver/Auto 1 came off of Langley Street, onto 170th Street and proceeded into the eastbound traffic without looking to see if there was any traffic traveling east on 170th Street. Driver/Auto 3 was traveling east on 170th Street in the outside lane closest to the curb. Driver/Auto 2 was traveling east on 170th Street on the inside lane.
Both Driver/Auto 2 (which was in front of the Nissan traveling south on Parkside Avenue approaching 170th Street) and Driver/Auto 3 turned off of Parkside Avenue to travel east on 170th Street. Driver/Auto 2 and Driver/Auto 3 were traveling approximately 10 to 15 miles per hour. We had just turned onto 170th Street, and the point of impact happened approximately one block away at Langley Street. There was an outside witness to the accident, Ms. Laura Clemons, license plate number C936809, telephone number 708-331-2291.
As Driver/Auto 1 came off of Langley to proceed onto 170th Street, Ms. Clemons blew her car horn continuously attempting to alert Driver/Auto 1 to the oncoming traffic, Driver/Auto 2 and Driver/Auto 3. Driver/Auto 1 ignored the warning. Driver/Auto 2 saw Driver/Auto 1 coming from between the cars and attempted to avoid the collision by coming into the lane of Driver/Auto 3. Driver/Auto 1 hit the front driver’s side wheel of Driver/Auto 2. Driver/Auto 2 was forced into Driver/Auto 3’s lane. Driver/Auto 3 attempted to avoid the accident by swerving in the direction (to the right, south) that Driver/Auto 1 was forcing Driver/Auto 2 to go in because Driver/Auto 1’s passenger side front bumper hit Driver/Auto 2 pushing it into the lane of Driver/Auto 3. Driver/Auto 2 came into Driver/Auto 3’s lane too quickly for Driver/Auto 3 to avoid striking Driver/Auto 2’s rear passenger side of the car.
Driver/Auto 2 and Driver/Auto 3 gave the above information to Officer Kremski of the South Holland Police Department (SHPD). Officer Kremski ignored the information about the witness, Ms. Clemons, stating that if she was a witness she should have stayed on the scene. I asked Officer Kremski why would she have to stay on the scene if she gave her information up freely to be contacted by SHPD. I asked Officer Kremski doesn’t he do an investigation into the facts of an auto accident. He informed me that he only questions people on the scene about auto accidents.
I asked him why didn’t he issue tickets so that a fact-finder, such as the courts, could get testimony and seek all witnesses. Officer Kremski informed me that because of his past experiences with traffic court and people not showing up, it has discouraged him from giving tickets at the scene of accidents.
On October 7, 2005, I called Founders Insurance Company requesting information on this accident due to my medical and other expenses. I was told my case was transferred to the subrogation department, and that Ms. Barbara Priorello was the investigator. I attempted contact but could only leave a message for Mr. Priorello requesting she call me.
On October 7, 2005, I was informed Founders sent a letter to Kemper Insurance on or about September 27, 2005. Founders reports Kemper sent a response letter on October 6, 2005 denying my claim stating, “Driver 3 was at fault for not keeping a safe distance from Driver 2.” If you examine the facts above, you will find this statement has no validity or rationale. Founders Insurance also disclosed a letter was sent to Allstate Insurance. As of the date of this letter, I was told that Allstate has not responded.
On October 7, 2005, I spoke to Ms. Pam Nardi, Assistant Vice-President, of Founders Insurance. I asked her what was Founders going to do, since Founders insured me at the time of this accident. I wanted assurance of indemnification. I wanted to know in terms of representation if I sued by Kemper or Allstate, what will be Founders’ position. I informed her Founders has a duty to defend me if Kemper or Allstate sues me. Ms. Nardi assured me Founders knows of their responsibility to me as an insured customer at the time of this accident.
Therefore, I will fax this letter to Ms. Barbara Priorello and mail a hard copy through U.S. Mail requesting a call to discuss the issues. I need to know who will pay my medical bills and other expenses incurred. I will also attach this letter and the letter sent to SHPD and others to my blog at: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/.
March 29, 2005
Mr. Don DeGraff, Mayor of South Holland Mr. Warren Millsaps
16226 Wausau Ave. Chief of Police, South Holland
South Holland, Illinois 60473 16220 Wausau Ave.
South Holland, Illinois 60473
Mr. Hollis Dorrough, Deputy Chief Mr. Barak Obama
South Holland Police Department 230 S. Dearborn St., Suite 3900
16220 Wausau Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60604
South Holland, Illinois 60473
Mr. Obama:
I would like this information to become part of the claim I submitted to the office listed above on February 11, 2005.
The South Holland Police Department (SHPD) continues to practice disparate and indifferent treatment. The blatant disregard and egregious treatment of African-Americans in South Holland continues on a regular basis. My complaints to this police department are ignored. I am never contacted by this police department to discuss my complaints. They will probably ignore me and this complaint as well.
On March 18, 2005 I was involved in a three-car accident at 170th and Langley. Involved in the car accident was a white woman (Denise Lenting) and her passenger (Bonita Vasquez) driving a Toyota Camry, license plate number 3472264; a black woman (Mary Ambrose) and her son (Sullivan Ambrose age 14) driving a Lexus, license plate number 2720486; and my car (Fred Nance, a black man) driving a Nissan Altima, license plate number 1268347.
Each person gave their account of the accident to SHPD officer Kremski, ID #106. I have written about this police officer many times coming to my house harassing and intimidating me (see documents I submitted to you on February 11, 2005).
On the date in question, the train had the westbound traffic blocked on 170th Street. The train tracks are located at 170th Street and Parkside Avenue. The westbound traffic was stopped at 170th and Parkside Avenue, East of the tracks.
The accident occurred at 170th and Langley. Langley is approximately one (1) block east of Parkside Avenue. The Toyota was driving southbound on Langley. The Toyota came off of Langley Street, onto 170th Street and proceeded into the eastbound traffic without looking to see if there was any traffic traveling east on 170th Street. The Nissan was traveling east on 170th Street in the outside lane closest to the curb. The Lexus was traveling east on 170th Street on the inside lane.
Both the Lexus (which was in front of the Nissan traveling south on Parkside Avenue approaching 170th Street) and Nissan turned off of Parkside Avenue to travel east on 170th Street. The Lexus and Nissan were traveling approximately 10 to 15 miles per hour. We had just turned onto 170th Street, and the point of impact happened approximately one block away at Langley Street.
There was an outside witness to the accident, Ms. Laura Clemons, license plate number C936809, telephone number 708-331-2291. As the Toyota came off of Langley to proceed onto 170th Street, Ms. Clemons blew her car horn continuously attempting to alert the Toyota driver to the oncoming traffic, the Lexus and Nissan. The Toyota ignored the warning.
The Lexus saw the Toyota coming from between the cars and attempted to avoid the collision by coming into the lane of the Nissan. The Toyota hit the front driver’s side wheel of the Lexus. The Lexus was forced into the Nissan’s lane. The Nissan attempted to avoid the accident by swerving in the direction (to the right, south) that the Toyota was forcing the Lexus to go in because the Toyota’s passenger side front bumper hit the Lexus pushing it into the lane of the Nissan. The Lexus came into the Nissan’s lane to quickly for the Nissan to avoid striking the Lexus’ rear passenger side of the car.
The Lexus and Nissan driver gave the above information to Officer Kremski. Officer Kemski ignored the information about Ms. Clemons stating that if she was a witness she should have stayed on the scene. I asked him why would she have to stay on the scene if she gave her information up freely to be contacted by SHPD. I asked Officer Kremski doesn’t he do an investigation into the facts of the matter. He informed me that he only questions people on the scene about car accidents.
I asked him why didn’t he issue tickets so that a fact-finder, such as the courts, could get testimony and seek all witnesses. Officer Kremski informed me that because of his past experiences with traffic court and people not showing up has discouraged him from giving tickets at the scene of accidents. This is ludicrous.
Officer Kremski interviewed the Toyota’s passenger, Ms. Bonita Vasquez, about the accident and reported her on the Illinois Traffic Crash Report as a “passenger/witness. Officer Kremski did not question or attempt to question the Lexus drivers’ son, Sullivan Ambrose age 14-years-old. The Lexus driver informed Officer Kremski that her son was a passenger in her automobile. Officer Kremski did not list the Lexus drivers’ son, on the Illinois Traffic Crash Report as a passenger/witness. When I questioned Officer Kremski about this, on or about March 23, 2005 approximately 5 days after the accident, he reported that it was his error, but he could not change the Illinois Traffic Crash Report. (I had been to the SHPD everyday after the accident but Officer Kremski reported off sick. I reported my issues to Lt. Pedric and Sgt. Tavanaro.).
This method of operation condoned by the SHPD creates more problems for people who have car accidents. If the police are not going to attempt to question “all potential witnesses” how will truth be determined? I have never heard of a police officer not having the duty to question any witness in a crime/accident where they were called upon to do so.
This has caused my insurance company to view the accident as if “fault” could not be determined by the SHPD. If it had been a “black” man or woman, the SHPD would have issued tickets. They would have called witnesses if a “white” person told them there were witnesses. It is mind-bogging to think that a police department, which is a fact-finder as legally defined, would not attempt to determine the truth of a matter by calling the phone number of a potential witness given at the scene by a participant in the accident or if the police officer did not want to bother with that approach, the police officer could have given everyone a ticket and let the courts figure it out.
If the car accident participant took the time to gather pertinent information at the scene of an accident, it would appear that the SHPD would act appropriately to the information. If this were a murder scene, would the SHPD ignore witnesses and testimony? I have been told several times by the SHPD that they operate on criminal matters, not civil matters. A traffic accident technically goes to criminal court and is identified by the criminal code. Officer Kremski had a duty to act on the information given to him to assist in fact-finding procedures.
If nothing else, he could have given tickets to all of us if he did not feel like getting involved. Then the participants in the accident could have presented our “evidence and witnesses” to the court. There is no reason in the world why Officer Kremski should not have interviewed the Lexus driver’s son, who remained on the scene of the accident. Officer Kremski’s reason for not pursuing witness Ms. Clemons is that she left the scene of the accident. This is disparate and indifferent treatment.
Please investigate.